Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Computer Information (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f41-computer-information.html)
-   -   Re: NTFS & FAT32 (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t307989-re-ntfs-and-fat32.html)

Trent© 07-06-2003 02:35 AM

Re: NTFS & FAT32
 
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:40:28 -0000, "DeMoN_LaG"
<de_on-lag@co_cast.net> wrote:


>Compare 32k clusters vs 4k clusters and tell me which wastes more space.


Impossible to answer...without knowing the size of the files. But it
IS possible that the 4k would waste more space than the 32k.


Have a nice 4th weekend...

Trent

Help keep down the world population...have your partner spayed or
neutered.

DeMoN_LaG 07-06-2003 05:49 AM

Re: NTFS & FAT32
 
Trent© <trentsauder@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:al2fgvo8fnjkq8iiisoicj6bihvd7ekb2j@4ax.com:

> Impossible to answer...without knowing the size of the files. But it
> IS possible that the 4k would waste more space than the 32k.


I would like an example of how this would be possible, unless you are
taking the extreme case and saying the drive has like 4 files on it and
they are all extremely large and require a lot of MFT entries and the MFT
grows so large that it wastes space that would be otherwise be free. I can
not think of a practical reason why one would prefer 32k clusters over 4k
clusters.

Ken 07-06-2003 07:32 AM

Re: NTFS & FAT32
 
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 05:49:20 -0000, "DeMoN_LaG"
<de_on-lag@co_cast.net> wrote:

> I can not think of a practical reason why one would prefer
> 32k clusters over 4k clusters.


For big sound files, video files or image files.



Trent© 07-06-2003 02:52 PM

Re: NTFS & FAT32
 
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 05:49:20 -0000, "DeMoN_LaG"
<de_on-lag@co_cast.net> wrote:

>Trent© <trentsauder@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:al2fgvo8fnjkq8iiisoicj6bihvd7ekb2j@4ax.com :
>
>> Impossible to answer...without knowing the size of the files. But it
>> IS possible that the 4k would waste more space than the 32k.

>
>I would like an example of how this would be possible, unless you are
>taking the extreme case and saying the drive has like 4 files on it and
>they are all extremely large and require a lot of MFT entries and the MFT
>grows so large that it wastes space that would be otherwise be free. I can
>not think of a practical reason why one would prefer 32k clusters over 4k
>clusters.


There is no example, of course. Your scenario...and my
scenario...were both hypothetical.

But my scenario could work just as well as your scenario.

Bottom line...for both our examples...

If the file fits exactly into the cluster, there will be no waste. So
size of the cluster itself is not the determining factor when talking
about waste.


Have a nice 4th weekend...

Trent

Help keep down the world population...have your partner spayed or
neutered.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.