9326
Living Room / Re: File Size vs. Size on Disk: Why such a difference?
« Last post by wraith808 on April 07, 2010, 01:30 PM »I think it has to do with block size- at least that's what I always attributed it to.
Update: I thought more about it, and that maybe I needed to expand on my explanation. The block size is the minimum size of data on a drive. If there is a file that is smaller than the block size, that's the minimum size that can be taken up even if it's smaller, i.e. if you store a 200 byte file, but the minimum size is 1024 bytes, you lose the other 824 bytes because it has to take a whole 1024 bytes. Also, since they are allocated in blocks, if something is not exactly a multiple of the block size, there is some waste in space. That's what I've always attributed the difference to- and looking on wikipedia at least, it seems to be borne up by how they write to NAND drives.
Update: I thought more about it, and that maybe I needed to expand on my explanation. The block size is the minimum size of data on a drive. If there is a file that is smaller than the block size, that's the minimum size that can be taken up even if it's smaller, i.e. if you store a 200 byte file, but the minimum size is 1024 bytes, you lose the other 824 bytes because it has to take a whole 1024 bytes. Also, since they are allocated in blocks, if something is not exactly a multiple of the block size, there is some waste in space. That's what I've always attributed the difference to- and looking on wikipedia at least, it seems to be borne up by how they write to NAND drives.