65.5 MB of space used for file system information?

[Primal Ooze]

I have a new Seagate 80 gig barracuda which I partitioned into 3 drives.

One drive is approx. 5.5 gigs (fat 32). It is empty yet has 4kb of used space.

The next drive is approx. 35.9 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.5 MB of used space.

The next drive is approx. 33.4 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.4 MB of used space.

My question is why do the NTFS drives need to use so much space for (partition and file system information, I imagine)? It seems
like too much. Did I do something wrong?

 

[Primal Ooze]

I have a new Seagate 80 gig barracuda which I partitioned into 3 drives.

One drive is approx. 5.5 gigs (fat 32). It is empty yet has 4kb of used space.

The next drive is approx. 35.9 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.5 MB of used space.

The next drive is approx. 33.4 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.4 MB of used space.

My question is why do the NTFS drives need to use so much space for (partition and file system information, I imagine)? It seems
like too much. Did I do something wrong?

The OS is Win XP and I used the installation disk that came with the hard drive. Would it be better to use fdisk?

 

[wolfgang schneider]

I have a new Seagate 80 gig barracuda which I partitioned into 3 drives.

One drive is approx. 5.5 gigs (fat 32). It is empty yet has 4kb of used space.

The next drive is approx. 35.9 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.5 MB of used space.

The next drive is approx. 33.4 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.4 MB of used space.

My question is why do the NTFS drives need to use so much space for (partition and file system information, I imagine)? It seems
like too much. Did I do something wrong?

usually i spend 1/4 or 1/3 of the capacity for mft . if you mean system
volume information - this can be zero .

 

[wolfgang schneider]

The OS is Win XP and I used the installation disk that came with the hard drive. Would it be better to use fdisk?

it will be the same . give it a try ....

 

[Arno Wagner]

I have a new Seagate 80 gig barracuda which I partitioned into 3 drives.

One drive is approx. 5.5 gigs (fat 32). It is empty yet has 4kb of used space.

The next drive is approx. 35.9 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.5 MB of used space.

The next drive is approx. 33.4 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.4 MB of used space.

My question is why do the NTFS drives need to use so much space for (partition and file system information, I imagine)? It seems
like too much. Did I do something wrong?

You likely do not know much about filesystem design. And no, 0.2% is
not too much by most standards.

Arno

 

[Gerhard Fiedler]

One drive is approx. 5.5 gigs (fat 32). It is empty yet has 4kb of used
space.

The next drive is approx. 35.9 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.5 MB
of used space.

My question is why do the NTFS drives need to use so much space for
(partition and file system information, I imagine)? It seems like too
much. Did I do something wrong?

I think NTFS counts its index files as "used space" whereas FAT32 counts
its two FAT copies not as used space (they could be outside the given
partition size), so you have only the root directory as initially used
space.

65 MB of admin data for 35 GB is about 0.2%. That's not that much... the
FAT32 partition tables may well be in that range, too, even though they
don't appear as "used space".

Nothing wrong.

Gerhard

 

[Primal Ooze]

I think NTFS counts its index files as "used space" whereas FAT32 counts
its two FAT copies not as used space (they could be outside the given
partition size), so you have only the root directory as initially used
space.

65 MB of admin data for 35 GB is about 0.2%. That's not that much... the
FAT32 partition tables may well be in that range, too, even though they
don't appear as "used space".

Nothing wrong.

Gerhard

Okey Dokey
Thanks guys
Dale

 

[Eric Gisin]

NTFS usage includes file system overhead (typically 0.1%),
FAT32 usage only includes directories, not FATs (each 0.1%).

I have a new Seagate 80 gig barracuda which I partitioned into 3 drives.

One drive is approx. 5.5 gigs (fat 32). It is empty yet has 4kb of used space.

The next drive is approx. 35.9 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.5 MB of used space.

The next drive is approx. 33.4 gig (NTFS). It is empty yet has 65.4 MB of used space.

My question is why do the NTFS drives need to use so much space for (partition and file system

information, I imagine)? It seems