ParbreastionCluster SizeWasted Space
Dell's disk monitoring system .. EIDE error
Hi All, Some friends asked me to 'sort out' their Dimension 4300 that was running slow and had many 'issues'. Apparently, their brother in law had fitted a...
ParbreastionCluster SizeWasted Space 2213
Hi! That is generally correct, and no matter the file system type you use, there will always be some waste. Most, if not all, file systems have one "smallest...
I run Windows XP Home, SP2, NTFS.
I heard on a radio show (Online with David Lawrence) that when parbreastioning drives, the larger the parbreastion, the larger the clusters, therefore the more wasted space. I may have misunderstood, but I did google the subject, and what I found (and am able to understand - most was very technical) leads me to believe this is correct.
My understanding is that regardless of how many parbreastions are made, the same capacity will be reported. But, when data is added-stored on the drive, a multi-parbreastioned drive will fill up slower because less space is wasted. Also, the larger the file size, the less wasted space.
Is this true, and to what extent?
I've got the following IDE drives that I'll be adding to other machines, which I plan to format as one parbreastion. I've read about single parbreastion vs multi-parbreastion, and the pros and cons of each. I find it easier to navigate with fewer logical drives than half the alphabet showing up on my computer.
250GB external USB Seagate (currently formatted FAT32 and hooked to this NTFS machine and used as a backup ) 160GB internal Seagate (to be used as a primary) 160BG internal WD (to be used as a slave)
For me, space isn't an issue, since my needs are generally low. I don't do a lot of mult-media stuff (yet?). Also, storage is cheap, but I was curious about this.
ParbreastionCluster SizeWasted Space 2212
Bruce Yes, that's true. The term is called slack space. Files must be allocated at least 1 cluster, and files cannot share clusters (It's called cross-linking, and it's...