 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 392 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614130 Today 2 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I read once that one should maintian relatively mall partitions with fat32 or else storage space is lost. 9 have 200 GB (1. 120, 2. 80 physical) i used to have everything split up into about 20 GB partitions, is this nessary? i do notice that even when i set partitions that windows will somehow "lose" a few gigs off it's total. i understand the need for certian sys files, and the fat tables themselves...but i'm talking whole gigs! also, win2k is shaving gig's off the total compacity of my phystical HD space |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
mall=small |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you are using Win2K, I'd use NTFS instead of Fat32. Also, do you really need to partition? If so, chose about 2)gb for C: and the rest for D: but use NTFS |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i chose not to use ntfs for when my sys craps out on me, i can get into my shit via dos. i have a 2 gb partition for my os, (which i need to expand). do i need to partition? not really, and this is why i'm asking. i'd like to have it all as one big drive, but i know i've seen, heard, read that fat will not allow the user to have space (for whatever reason) when one does this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have a 40gb, 200gb and a 160gb drive and they are all ntfs and one partition. There is always a small amount of space used for the formatting and such. My 200gb with ntfs file system is 186gb, and my 160 is 149. Thats just the way things work. I've never had any troubles with the large partitions. My 200gb drive used to be fat32 also, and I had no trouble with it then. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"My 200gb with ntfs file system is 186gb" this is the reason why i created this thread. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That is just what happens. The larger the drive, the more space needed for all the formatting info. That and the drives aren't actually as big as they saw. in raw capacity perhaps, but once formatted.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my head is spinning...... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
like dubleozyx said that space is taken up for formatting info but not all of it. some of it may be taken up by the amount of megabytes or even gigabytes for paging. this setting can be changed but you don't want to make it too low. i believe it is called paging. i haven't seen win2k in a few months though so i may be wrong. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i didnt think fat32 supported anything over 40gig? atleast not very well anyway. if you use ntfs, you could have one big drive. i wouldnt though. makes it easier to back-up / format sections, if you have it partitioned. i have; 10gig system 10gig programs 40gig music 40gig design 100gig server |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i have a simular setup |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it could be due to the notation method used for the drive, for example people may think that 1K as in 1 kilobyte =1000bytes, infact it is 1024 bytes (2^10 bytes). The same is true for mega and giga bytes,etc. a drive manufacturer will either use the incorrect 1000bytes to a Kb or 1024per kb depending on which will make the drives capacity appear larger, but windows will use the 1024 method, eg my 60gig drive is reported as 59 or 58 gigs by windows, but its due to the conversions involved. the people responsible for this sort of thing are trying to introduce mebibyte as 1024 and megabyte as 1000, along with gibi bytes, kibi bytes,etc. but no one has changed because they are set in their ways and the new names suck. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
My drive all server one purpose though, and so I have no need for partitioning. 40gb system, 160gb for my music and movies, and the 200gb for mp3's and lossless audio, and temp space for ripping dvd's. I also have am buying another 200gb drive and making a raid1 out of it. What irritates me is the fact the cpu's can process info faster than drives can read/write it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
