home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!netnews.cc.lehigh.edu!ns1.cc.lehigh.edu!etl0
- From: etl0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ERIC TODD LANDRIEU)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
- Subject: Re: Why do I get less hd space under HPFS than FAT??!?!
- Message-ID: <1992Jul23.014808.29297@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>
- Date: 23 Jul 92 01:48:08 GMT
- Organization: Lehigh University
- Lines: 27
-
- >I have a 130meg Maxtor 7120A IDE hd.
- >
- >It formats out to 129.9 megs under DOS 5 & FAT.
- >It formats out to 127.1 megs under OS/2 & HPFS.
- >
- >Does anyone know why I lose 3 megs if I use HPFS? I thought that
- >HPFS would give me more space than FAT because it uses smaller
- >sector sizes than FAT, or something like that.
- >
- You get less space because HPFS uses the extra space for indices, etc. to make
- the file access quicker and more efficient. I don't remember the details, but
- there is a fairly good explanation published a couple of years ago(I think it
- was in Byte) which I ran across recently. It does have smaller "sectors," but
- when you think about it, even if FAT had more smaller sectors, you'd be
- increasing the size of the FAT tables, etc. needed to maintain the disk. So,
- the combination of the two do a good job of cutting a little off of your disk
- space(you're not alone... I lost around 2-3 megs on my drive in HPFS, too).
- Eric Landrieu
-
-
- --
-
- ===============================================
- = Eric Landrieu = ETL0@ns1.CC.lehigh.EDU =
- ===============================================
- "Of all the people I've ever met, you're certainly one of them."
- -Ellis Fuls
-