100 megs for a FAT?

Self build / N/A
June 27, 2009 at 17:38:44
Specs: WinXP, 1.5Ghz, 256MB
I recently bought a 1TB hard drive. I want to partition it into ten 100GB drives. When I create the partition, it only says it's 97.7GB and when I format it, it goes to 97.6GB. That's 100MB for a FAT? If I do this 10 times, then I lose 1GB? Is there any partitioning scheme to use which doesn't waste this much space? Also, why does it say 97.7 instead of 100? And when I started it said there was 953689 available instead of the whole 1TB. What happened to the other almost 50GB?

See More: 100 megs for a FAT?

Report •


#1
June 27, 2009 at 19:22:06
"when I started it said there was 953689 available instead of the whole 1TB. What happened to the other almost 50GB?"

HDD manufacturer's rate their drives using 1000MB/GB when they *should* use 1024MB/GB. Do the math:

1000 bytes/MB X 1000MB/GB = 1,000,000 bytes/GB

1024 bytes/MB x 1024MB/GB = 1,048,576 bytes/GB

1,000,000 / 1,048,576 = 0.9536

So if you wanna break your HDD into 10 equal sized partitions, each partiton should be 95.36GB. But to get 95.36GB, you'll have to set the size to approx 97.65GB


Report •

#2
June 27, 2009 at 20:16:35
Following the above formula, Windows see your 1TB as a 931GB drive.

i_Xp/VistaUser


Report •

#3
June 27, 2009 at 20:22:13
"Following the above formula, Windows see your 1TB as a 931GB drive"

That's what I would normally expect to see, but apparently this HDD manufacturer calculated differently.


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
June 27, 2009 at 20:55:26
Forgot to mention...the 953689 figure came up doing a clean install of Vista on a blank drive. Once in Windows, it is showing as 931GB. Is this a quirk of Windows and how it calulates drive space?

Report •

#5
June 27, 2009 at 21:35:06
No. Hard drive manufacturers define a terabyte as 1,000,000,000 bytes. Windows defines a terabyte as 1,073,741,824 bytes. 1,000,000,000 / 1,073,741,824 = 0.931322 or 931 GB.

i_Xp/VistaUser


Report •

#6
June 27, 2009 at 23:42:47
To add to the correct explanations above I tried to simplify the math in #3 here:

http://www.computing.net/answers/ha...

For single partition terabyte drives you'd divide by 1.024 a forth time to get the total binary size.

If you click on the drive's properties in 'my computer' you should get the size in both formats.


Report •

#7
June 28, 2009 at 14:15:51
You'll waste a fair bit of space partitioning into that number of drives (you may have, and probably do have a valid reason to do so). Each drive will a have it's own free space, whereas there'll only be one pool of free space on a single partition. Why not keep one partition and set up ten folders instead?

Report •

#8
June 28, 2009 at 14:31:35
I am curious as to why 10 partitions?

Report •

#9
June 28, 2009 at 20:37:01
I want to make the PC a multiboot. When Windows 7 comes out in the Fall, I want to install it to a logical drive in the extended partition. And then, in future, install the latest OSes on the other logical drives. The PC should last me, I figure, at least ten or more years, if you take into account that five Microsoft versions of Windows have come out in the last ten or so years. But this folder idea is interesting; can I install Windows to a folder instead of a logical drive? I think you have to specify a drive, don't you? What I've done in the past is put all boot files on the primary and OS files on the logical drives. I've never put OS files in just a folder. Can this be done? In which case, I'll just make one logical drive in the extended. Thanks.

Report •

#10
June 28, 2009 at 22:52:43
In short NO! you need to use partitions.
10 partitions is overcomplicating things, while there may be a need for 2-3 OS's, I would limit it to 4 partitions, 2 for OS's 1 for data and 1 for programs.
Ten years for a hard drive is posssible, but unlikely. I wouln't rely on one drive to last 10 years, especially now that they cost so little.

Report •

#11
June 29, 2009 at 06:45:44
I agree with anmor. You are trying to make things more complicated.

If you really want to future proof then use a third party boot loader and ALL primary partitions. Using the setup you describe make each OS dependent on another partition. If you eventually want to load more OSes just add another hard drive with another 4 primary partitions.


Report •

#12
June 29, 2009 at 20:54:19
Thanks folks! All good suggestions!

Report •


Ask Question