|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
December 6th 05, 06:21 AM
posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
|
|||
|
|||
65.5 MB of space used for file system information?
I have a new Seagate 80 gig barracuda which I partitioned into 3 drives.
One drive is approx. 5.5 gigs (fat 32). It is empty yet has 4kb of used space. The next drive is approx. 35.9 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.5 MB of used space. The next drive is approx. 33.4 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.4 MB of used space. My question is why do the NTFS drives need to use so much space for (partition and file system information, I imagine)? It seems like too much. Did I do something wrong? 
|
|
#2
December 6th 05, 06:32 AM
posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
|
|||
|
|||
|
65.5 MB of space used for file system information?
"Primal Ooze" wrote in message m... I have a new Seagate 80 gig barracuda which I partitioned into 3 drives. One drive is approx. 5.5 gigs (fat 32). It is empty yet has 4kb of used space. The next drive is approx. 35.9 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.5 MB of used space. The next drive is approx. 33.4 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.4 MB of used space. My question is why do the NTFS drives need to use so much space for (partition and file system information, I imagine)? It seems like too much. Did I do something wrong? The OS is Win XP and I used the installation disk that came with the hard drive. Would it be better to use fdisk?
|
|
#3
December 6th 05, 07:29 AM
posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
|
|||
|
|||
|
65.5 MB of space used for file system information?
|
|
#4
December 6th 05, 07:29 AM
posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
|
|||
|
|||
|
65.5 MB of space used for file system information?
|
|
#5
December 6th 05, 11:02 AM
posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
|
|||
|
|||
|
65.5 MB of space used for file system information?
Previously Primal Ooze wrote:
I have a new Seagate 80 gig barracuda which I partitioned into 3 drives. One drive is approx. 5.5 gigs (fat 32). It is empty yet has 4kb of used space. The next drive is approx. 35.9 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.5 MB of used space. The next drive is approx. 33.4 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.4 MB of used space. My question is why do the NTFS drives need to use so much space for (partition and file system information, I imagine)? It seems like too much. Did I do something wrong? You likely do not know much about filesystem design. And no, 0.2% is not too much by most standards. Arno
|
|
#6
December 6th 05, 01:43 PM
posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
|
|||
|
|||
|
65.5 MB of space used for file system information?
Primal Ooze wrote:
One drive is approx. 5.5 gigs (fat 32). It is empty yet has 4kb of used space. The next drive is approx. 35.9 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.5 MB of used space. My question is why do the NTFS drives need to use so much space for (partition and file system information, I imagine)? It seems like too much. Did I do something wrong? I think NTFS counts its index files as "used space" whereas FAT32 counts its two FAT copies not as used space (they could be outside the given partition size), so you have only the root directory as initially used space. 65 MB of admin data for 35 GB is about 0.2%. That's not that much... the FAT32 partition tables may well be in that range, too, even though they don't appear as "used space". Nothing wrong. Gerhard
|
|
#7
December 6th 05, 02:25 PM
posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
|
|||
|
|||
|
65.5 MB of space used for file system information?
"Gerhard Fiedler" wrote in message ... Primal Ooze wrote: One drive is approx. 5.5 gigs (fat 32). It is empty yet has 4kb of used space. The next drive is approx. 35.9 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.5 MB of used space. My question is why do the NTFS drives need to use so much space for (partition and file system information, I imagine)? It seems like too much. Did I do something wrong? I think NTFS counts its index files as "used space" whereas FAT32 counts its two FAT copies not as used space (they could be outside the given partition size), so you have only the root directory as initially used space. 65 MB of admin data for 35 GB is about 0.2%. That's not that much... the FAT32 partition tables may well be in that range, too, even though they don't appear as "used space". Nothing wrong. Gerhard Okey Dokey Thanks guys Dale
|
|
#8
December 6th 05, 05:59 PM
posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
|
|||
|
|||
|
65.5 MB of space used for file system information?
NTFS usage includes file system overhead (typically 0.1%),
FAT32 usage only includes directories, not FATs (each 0.1%). "Primal Ooze" wrote in message m... I have a new Seagate 80 gig barracuda which I partitioned into 3 drives. One drive is approx. 5.5 gigs (fat 32). It is empty yet has 4kb of used space. The next drive is approx. 35.9 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.5 MB of used space. The next drive is approx. 33.4 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.4 MB of used space. My question is why do the NTFS drives need to use so much space for (partition and file system information, I imagine)? It seems like too much. Did I do something wrong?
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Attn: 832GM and other XP Owners | Russ Edwards | Gateway Computers | 12 | July 24th 05 12:37 AM |
| Newbie: OC Advice: AMDXP2200 CPU | Donald Bock | Overclocking AMD Processors | 2 | March 12th 05 12:14 AM |
| Trouble cloning XP with Ghost 2003 | Kevin | Storage (alternative) | 26 | February 8th 05 05:33 AM |
| can someone look at this? | steve | General | 3 | March 1st 04 11:11 PM |
| help?? | steve | General | 11 | February 11th 04 05:08 PM |
Linear Mode
