"Missing" 1.94 GB on hard drive

W

whitesmith

Hello all,

The bootable D drive in my PC is a 16.9 GB (formatted) SCSI. There are
only 3 folders on it that contain data: Documents and Settings (1.37
GB used), Program Files (1.03 GB used) and Windows (3.34 GB used). I
obtained these figures using folder properties. The sum is 5.74 GB.
When I select drive properties, Windows reports 7.68 GB are used -- a
difference of 1.94 GB. Quite a big difference.

Thinking that the disparity might be explained by hidden or system
files I scanned everything on the drive with a directory command (dir /
a:r /a:a /a:s /a:h /a:d *.* /s) ... and got exactly the same figure
reported by drive properties!

Kudos to the person who explains where 1.94 GB is being sucked up.
 
S

Shenan Stanley

whitesmith said:
The bootable D drive in my PC is a 16.9 GB (formatted) SCSI. There
are only 3 folders on it that contain data: Documents and Settings
(1.37 GB used), Program Files (1.03 GB used) and Windows (3.34 GB
used). I obtained these figures using folder properties. The sum is
5.74 GB. When I select drive properties, Windows reports 7.68 GB
are used -- a difference of 1.94 GB. Quite a big difference.

Thinking that the disparity might be explained by hidden or system
files I scanned everything on the drive with a directory command
(dir / a:r /a:a /a:s /a:h /a:d *.* /s) ... and got exactly the same
figure reported by drive properties!

Kudos to the person who explains where 1.94 GB is being sucked up.

Hibernation/pagefile is a probable suspect.
System restore is another good candidate.

The informnation below can help you pinpoint where the space is being 'used'
and perhaps (given the smallness of your partition/drive) - give you a
little extra breathing room in the process.

If you are comfortable with the stability of your system, you can delete the
uninstall files for the patches that Windows XP has installed...
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spack.htm

Used Disk Cleanup?
Is hibernate turned on and do you use that feature?
Uninstalled unnecessary applications lately?

You can run Disk Cleanup - built into Windows XP - to erase all but your
latest restore point and cleanup even more "loose files"..

How to use Disk Cleanup
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310312

You can turn off hibernation if it is on and you don't use it..

When you hibernate your computer, Windows saves the contents of the system's
memory to the hiberfil.sys file. As a result, the size of the hiberfil.sys
file will always equal the amount of physical memory in your system. If you
don't use the hibernate feature and want to recapture the space that Windows
uses for the hiberfil.sys file, perform the following steps:

- Start the Control Panel Power Options applet (go to Start, Settings,
Control Panel, and click Power Options).
- Select the Hibernate tab, clear the "Enable hibernation" check box, then
click OK; although you might think otherwise, selecting Never under the
"System hibernates" option on the Power Schemes tab doesn't delete the
hiberfil.sys file.
- Windows will remove the "System hibernates" option from the Power Schemes
tab and delete the hiberfil.sys file.

You can control how much space your System Restore can use...

1. Click Start, right-click My Computer, and then click Properties.
2. Click the System Restore tab.
3. Highlight one of your drives (or C: if you only have one) and click on
the "Settings" button.
4. Change the percentage of disk space you wish to allow.. I suggest moving
the slider until you have just about 1GB (1024MB or close to that...)
5. Click OK.. Then Click OK again.

You can control how much space your Temporary Internet Files can utilize...

Empty your Temporary Internet Files and shrink the size it stores to a
size between 64MB and 256MB..

- Open ONE copy of Internet Explorer.
- Select TOOLS -> Internet Options.
- Under the General tab in the "Temporary Internet Files" section, do the
following:
- Click on "Delete Cookies" (click OK)
- Click on "Settings" and change the "Amount of disk space to use:" to
something between 64MB and 256MB. (It may be MUCH larger right
now.)
- Click OK.
- Click on "Delete Files" and select to "Delete all offline contents"
(the checkbox) and click OK. (If you had a LOT, this could take 2-10
minutes or more.)
- Once it is done, click OK, close Internet Explorer, re-open Internet
Explorer.

You can use an application that scans your system for log files and
temporary files and use that to get rid of those:

Ccleaner (Free!)
http://www.ccleaner.com/

Other ways to free up space..

SequoiaView
http://www.win.tue.nl/sequoiaview/

DX Hog Hunt
http://www.dvxp.com/en/Downloads.aspx

JDiskReport
http://www.jgoodies.com/freeware/jdiskreport/index.html

Those can help you visually discover where all the space is being used.
 
P

Poprivet`

whitesmith said:
Hello all,

The bootable D drive in my PC is a 16.9 GB
(formatted)
SCSI. There are only 3 folders on it that contain
data:
Documents and Settings (1.37 GB used), Program Files
(1.03 GB used) and Windows (3.34 GB used). I obtained
these figures using folder properties. The sum is
5.74
GB. When I select drive properties, Windows reports
7.68
GB are used -- a difference of 1.94 GB. Quite a big
difference.

Thinking that the disparity might be explained by
hidden
or system files I scanned everything on the drive
with a
directory command (dir / a:r /a:a /a:s /a:h /a:d *.*
/s)
... and got exactly the same figure reported by drive
properties!

Kudos to the person who explains where 1.94 GB is
being
sucked up.

You cannot add the math that way.
You are assuming that 1k = 1,000 bytes but not so: 1k
= 1,024 bytes to the disk. Also, Explorer and DIR are
not reporting exact sizes: They are the file sizes
rounded off to the nearest sector usage setting of your
disk drive sectors. In other words, if you have 4k
sectors on your disk, a 1 byte file is going to occupy
4,000 bytes because it lives in the sector and can not
share it with any other file. And on and on.
IMO it's time for you to visit Google or your
favorite search engine and read up on the various
subjects. Start with NTFS +"Disk File Structure "
.. You'll get lots of hits, I'm sure.

This might get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive#Capacity_measurements
 
G

Gerry

Shenan pointed to two causes. Another is that the Windows Update folders
will most likely be compressed so that you could be counting size on
disk and Windows Explorer counts file sizes.

Shenan mentioned System Restore. Observe the affect of running Disk
CleanUp. Select Start, All Programs, accessories, System Tools, Disk
CleanUp,
More Options, System Restore and remove all but the latest System
Restore point. Run Disk Defragmenter.

--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
M

M.I.5¾

whitesmith said:
Hello all,

The bootable D drive in my PC is a 16.9 GB (formatted) SCSI. There are
only 3 folders on it that contain data: Documents and Settings (1.37
GB used), Program Files (1.03 GB used) and Windows (3.34 GB used). I
obtained these figures using folder properties. The sum is 5.74 GB.
When I select drive properties, Windows reports 7.68 GB are used -- a
difference of 1.94 GB. Quite a big difference.

Thinking that the disparity might be explained by hidden or system
files I scanned everything on the drive with a directory command (dir /
a:r /a:a /a:s /a:h /a:d *.* /s) ... and got exactly the same figure
reported by drive properties!

Kudos to the person who explains where 1.94 GB is being sucked up.

On average a stored file appears to waste half the cluster size. If we
assume that the cluster size is 4k bytes (that is storage is allocted in 4k
blocks), then a 1 byte or a 4096 byte file will use 4k of disc space. A
4097 byte file will use 8k of space as an extra 4k cluster has to be
allocated. If your folders contain a total of 9500 files then each file
wastes 2k of storage on average and this works out to around the 1.94 Gb
that you think you have mislaid.
 
U

Unknown

There are no sectors on today's hard drives.
Poprivet` said:
You cannot add the math that way.
You are assuming that 1k = 1,000 bytes but not so: 1k = 1,024 bytes to
the disk. Also, Explorer and DIR are not reporting exact sizes: They are
the file sizes rounded off to the nearest sector usage setting of your
disk drive sectors. In other words, if you have 4k sectors on your disk,
a 1 byte file is going to occupy 4,000 bytes because it lives in the
sector and can not share it with any other file. And on and on.
IMO it's time for you to visit Google or your favorite search engine and
read up on the various subjects. Start with NTFS +"Disk File
Structure " . You'll get lots of hits, I'm sure.

This might get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive#Capacity_measurements
 
W

whitesmith

<snip>

Thanks to everyone who answered. I should have mentioned that the file
system on my PC is HPFS, that I do not use any form of compression,
and that I correctly calculated file size in GB as follows: bytes /
1024 ** 3. Perhaps this will trigger another thought. In any event,
I'll use the resources suggested and post results back to the group.

Thank you all.
 
W

whitesmith

<snip>

Thanks to everyone who answered. I should have mentioned that the file
system on my PC is HPFS and that I do not use any form of compression
or
hibernation.

I correctly calculated file size in GB as:
bytes / 1024 ** 3. Perhaps this will trigger another thought. In
any event,
I'll use the resources suggested and post results back to the group.

Thank you all.
 
U

Unknown

Yes they are confused. Sectors went out in favor of 'clusters'. Sectors can
mislead your understanding
of how the disk is structured.
 
G

Gerry

Well he confused all of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPFS

and this for Unknown <G>:
a.. more efficient use of disk space (files are not stored using
multiple-sector clusters but on a per-sector basis)

--
~~~~


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
G

Gerry

Whitesmith

That was rather basic information you witheld. For that misdemeanour
please read:


--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

Yes they are confused. Sectors went out in favor of 'clusters'. Sectors can
mislead your understanding
of how the disk is structured.


That's simply nonsense. There have always been clusters *and* sectors.

Tracks are divided into sectors, A sector is usually 512 bytes.
Clusters, or allocation units, are some number of sectors. That's why
the smallest sector is 512 bytes--one sector.
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP



OK, I did. But what's your point? It doesn't say anything disagreeing
with my statement. First, it's talking about HPFS, a relatively
unusual file system. Then it says "files are not stored using
multiple-sector clusters but on a per-sector basis." That's simply a
cluster that's made up of a single cluster. As I said below "the
smallest sector [oops--I just noticed the typo; that was supposed to
be 'smallest cluster'] is 512 bytes--one sector."
 
G

Gerry

Ken

This thread is about an unusual file system which the OP didn't bother
to tell us about until we had all tried to answer his question.

--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




OK, I did. But what's your point? It doesn't say anything disagreeing
with my statement. First, it's talking about HPFS, a relatively
unusual file system. Then it says "files are not stored using
multiple-sector clusters but on a per-sector basis." That's simply a
cluster that's made up of a single cluster. As I said below "the
smallest sector [oops--I just noticed the typo; that was supposed to
be 'smallest cluster'] is 512 bytes--one sector."


 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

Ken

This thread is about an unusual file system which the OP didn't bother
to tell us about until we had all tried to answer his question.


Gerry, the thread may have started out that way, but neither my
message nor the message to which I replied had anything to do with
HPFS. Unknown stated "Sectors went out in favor of 'clusters'. Sectors
can mislead your understanding of how the disk is structured."

That statement was simply wrong, and I corrected it, lest someone be
misled by it. Sectors are as present on modern drives as they always
were. That's true even of HPFS drives.




OK, I did. But what's your point? It doesn't say anything disagreeing
with my statement. First, it's talking about HPFS, a relatively
unusual file system. Then it says "files are not stored using
multiple-sector clusters but on a per-sector basis." That's simply a
cluster that's made up of a single cluster. As I said below "the
smallest sector [oops--I just noticed the typo; that was supposed to
be 'smallest cluster'] is 512 bytes--one sector."


Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
Yes they are confused. Sectors went out in favor of 'clusters'.
Sectors can mislead your understanding
of how the disk is structured.


That's simply nonsense. There have always been clusters *and*
sectors.

Tracks are divided into sectors, A sector is usually 512 bytes.
Clusters, or allocation units, are some number of sectors. That's
why the smallest sector is 512 bytes--one sector.



Unknown wrote:
There are no sectors on today's hard drives.

Seagate must really be confused then. The data sheet for their
7200.11 hard drive says that it has 512 bytes per sector.

See
http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_barracuda_7200_11.pdf

How could they be so wrong, and you so right?
 
U

Unknown

Hogwash. They are clusters not sectors.
Ken Blake said:
Ken

This thread is about an unusual file system which the OP didn't bother
to tell us about until we had all tried to answer his question.


Gerry, the thread may have started out that way, but neither my
message nor the message to which I replied had anything to do with
HPFS. Unknown stated "Sectors went out in favor of 'clusters'. Sectors
can mislead your understanding of how the disk is structured."

That statement was simply wrong, and I corrected it, lest someone be
misled by it. Sectors are as present on modern drives as they always
were. That's true even of HPFS drives.


Ken


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPFS

Please read the link.


OK, I did. But what's your point? It doesn't say anything disagreeing
with my statement. First, it's talking about HPFS, a relatively
unusual file system. Then it says "files are not stored using
multiple-sector clusters but on a per-sector basis." That's simply a
cluster that's made up of a single cluster. As I said below "the
smallest sector [oops--I just noticed the typo; that was supposed to
be 'smallest cluster'] is 512 bytes--one sector."



Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
Yes they are confused. Sectors went out in favor of 'clusters'.
Sectors can mislead your understanding
of how the disk is structured.


That's simply nonsense. There have always been clusters *and*
sectors.

Tracks are divided into sectors, A sector is usually 512 bytes.
Clusters, or allocation units, are some number of sectors. That's
why the smallest sector is 512 bytes--one sector.



Unknown wrote:
There are no sectors on today's hard drives.

Seagate must really be confused then. The data sheet for their
7200.11 hard drive says that it has 512 bytes per sector.

See
http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_barracuda_7200_11.pdf

How could they be so wrong, and you so right?
 
C

C A Upsdell

Unknown said:
There are no sectors on today's hard drives.
You appear to know something that no one else in the world knows, not
even the manufacturers of hard drives. Here are data sheets published
by hard drive manufacturers, all mentioning sectors:

Seagate:
http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_barracuda_7200_11.pdf

Fujitsu:
http://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/COMP/fcpa/hdd/mhx2300bt_datasheet.pdf

Toshiba: http://sdd.toshiba.com/techdocs/MK2004GALUserGuide.pdf

HP: http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11531_na/11531_na.pdf

And the list goes on ...
 
U

Unknown

Let me give you this test! Is there the same amount of sectors (your words)
on
the outer track as the inner most track of a HD?

Ken Blake said:
Ken

This thread is about an unusual file system which the OP didn't bother
to tell us about until we had all tried to answer his question.


Gerry, the thread may have started out that way, but neither my
message nor the message to which I replied had anything to do with
HPFS. Unknown stated "Sectors went out in favor of 'clusters'. Sectors
can mislead your understanding of how the disk is structured."

That statement was simply wrong, and I corrected it, lest someone be
misled by it. Sectors are as present on modern drives as they always
were. That's true even of HPFS drives.


Ken


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPFS

Please read the link.


OK, I did. But what's your point? It doesn't say anything disagreeing
with my statement. First, it's talking about HPFS, a relatively
unusual file system. Then it says "files are not stored using
multiple-sector clusters but on a per-sector basis." That's simply a
cluster that's made up of a single cluster. As I said below "the
smallest sector [oops--I just noticed the typo; that was supposed to
be 'smallest cluster'] is 512 bytes--one sector."



Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
Yes they are confused. Sectors went out in favor of 'clusters'.
Sectors can mislead your understanding
of how the disk is structured.


That's simply nonsense. There have always been clusters *and*
sectors.

Tracks are divided into sectors, A sector is usually 512 bytes.
Clusters, or allocation units, are some number of sectors. That's
why the smallest sector is 512 bytes--one sector.



Unknown wrote:
There are no sectors on today's hard drives.

Seagate must really be confused then. The data sheet for their
7200.11 hard drive says that it has 512 bytes per sector.

See
http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_barracuda_7200_11.pdf

How could they be so wrong, and you so right?
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top