Re: NTFS & FAT32

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Trent©, Jul 6, 2003.

  1. Trent©

    Trent© Guest

    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.
    Trent©, Jul 6, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Trent©

    DeMoN_LaG Guest

    Trent© <> wrote in
    news::

    > 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.
    DeMoN_LaG, Jul 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Trent©

    Ken Guest

    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.
    Ken, Jul 6, 2003
    #3
  4. Trent©

    Trent© Guest

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

    >Trent© <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> 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.
    Trent©, Jul 6, 2003
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. The Prynce

    Re: Should I use fat32 for win2k pro? or ntfs?

    The Prynce, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    589
    neopolaris
    Jul 5, 2003
  2. John Haithwaite @ Blue Case Solutions

    Re: Question re:ntfs vs fat32

    John Haithwaite @ Blue Case Solutions, Jul 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,052
    Ralph Wade Phillips
    Jul 9, 2003
  3. PJB

    Re: Question re:ntfs vs fat32

    PJB, Jul 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    497
  4. Huey

    Re: Question re:ntfs vs fat32

    Huey, Jul 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    446
  5. Grimtooth

    File System (Fat32/NTFS) Question

    Grimtooth, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,646
    Grimtooth
    Jul 16, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page