home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!wupost!emory!uumind!overmind!midway.uchicago.edu.citadel!News
- From: midway.uchicago.edu!sip1@overmind.mind.org
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
- Subject: Re: Why do I get less hd space under HPFS than FAT??!?!
- Message-ID: <2178762@overmind.citadel>
- Date: 23 Jul 92 04:42:00 GMT
- Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
- Lines: 28
- X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
- X-Spam-content: irrelevant
-
- In article <1992Jul22.211605.12279@iplmail.orl.mmc.com>
- billr@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Bill Richmond) writes:
- >|> Hello. I have a question I hope someone can answer.
- >|> 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.
- >|> Please reply if you have an answer. Thanks.
- > It was the other way around for me. I "gained" like 2 megs by
- >using the HPFS...
-
- You are both correct.
-
- HPFS initially imposes a slightly higher overhead, but as soon as you
- start storing files you save space (because HPFS uses a smaller
- cluster size).
-
- It has been my experience that on anything other than small hard disks
- HPFS wins on disk capacity (with a "normal" mix of files on the
- system).
-
- --
- Get the OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST | Timothy F. Sipples
- from 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, | Internet: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu
- directory pub/os2/all/faq, or from | Dept. of Econ., U. Chicago, 60637
- LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP"). | Tsongas > Perot > Clinton. Yay.
-