🚀 go-pugleaf

aksood@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Anoop Sood) wrote:

>Hi,
>I just bought a NEC hard disk 2010A which has 2010 MB.  Fdisk in Warp  sees the disk
>as only having 1996 MB disk space.  Do I need any special drivers with this
>harddisk or does warp not recognize anything above 2 gigs.

>Any help would be appreciated.

2010 times 1000 => Million Bytes:   Mos Vendors use this as MB, sounds
better ;-> in Reality : 1963 MB (Megabytes), which would be: 1963
times 1024 times 1024 Bytes. 

It's sort of a lie: ! MB is defined as multiple of 1024, but ...;-<

	So it's working fine on your system
		SaS

In <DsELx0.EE3@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, aksood@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Anoop Sood) writes:
>Hi,
>I just bought a NEC hard disk 2010A which has 2010 MB.  Fdisk in Warp  sees the disk
>as only having 1996 MB disk space.  Do I need any special drivers with this
>harddisk or does warp not recognize anything above 2 gigs.
Actually, that sounds about right.  A manufacturer advertises the largest size 
they can to impress the consumer, and ignores the fact that once it is 
formatted, it will have somewhat less.  Not as bad a 25watt stereo having 
"100 watts peak power," but close.  You don't need a special driver, but a 
shotgun for the manufacturer might help.  Or some sort of standards (never.)
>
>Any help would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks
>Anoop
>aksood@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>-- 
>Anoop Sood
>aksood@cayley.uwaterloo.ca
>***************************
>
You're welcome

Jim Lang
Student    (ALWAYS!)
Mathematician   (SOON!)
Team-OS/2
#include standard_disclaimer.h

Anoop Sood (aksood@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: Hi,
: I just bought a NEC hard disk 2010A which has 2010 MB.  Fdisk in Warp  sees the disk
: as only having 1996 MB disk space.  Do I need any special drivers with this
: harddisk or does warp not recognize anything above 2 gigs.

Sounds right to me.  My IBM 1.7 Gig drive gives me 1625 mb when its 
formatted....... yeah right it sux but there not a lot you can do.

-- 

  John Jackson
    BONDI, NSW
      Australia
 

In <4p22qd$5t6@the-fly.zip.com.au>, johnj@zip.com.au (John Jackson) writes:
>Anoop Sood (aksood@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>: Hi,
>: I just bought a NEC hard disk 2010A which has 2010 MB.  Fdisk in Warp  sees the disk
>: as only having 1996 MB disk space.  Do I need any special drivers with this
>: harddisk or does warp not recognize anything above 2 gigs.

Sorry about all the newsgroups this is going to, but it's an important point:
Disks are sold in units of METRIC megabytes -- that is, 2010MB is 2,010,000,000
bytes. When you convert to computerese, that comes out to 1916MB of the
type we use. (Some manufacturer started "cheating" their marketing numbers
higher by using mega=1e6, and all the other manufacturers had to adopt the
same misleading standard or accept an unfair disadvantage. Annoying, but
too late to fix it. The original manufacturer's excuse was that this made
converting to "number of pages of text that fit on the disk" easier... yeah,
right.)

Also, remember that the manufacturer's size includes only low-level
formatting, NOT file-system overhead. They don't know what filesystem
you're going to use, so they simply give you raw storage and trust that
you'll do the appropriate calculation.

This is one place where OS/2 has major advantages, by the way. 
The old "made for 20MB disks" FAT design is _hugely_ inefficient at handling
large partitions, since it has to increase the size of its allocation unit in
order to cover the whole partition with a fixed-maximum-size table. There
are a few simple formulas to figure out the result, but on large drives FAT
can wind up wasting an average of 8-16KB per file. Compare that to HPFS,
which always allocates in unites of 512 bytes and hence has average waste
closer to 256 bytes per file. (There's some overhead as well, but that's
the right order of magnitude.)

In other words, using FAT on a large partition is going to waste much of
the disk space you paid for, and HPFS won't. Among its many other
advantages.

It's possible Microsoft's other filesystems are more efficient than FAT;
I haven't heard any details about them. But using FAT on a large drive
is NOT the way to go!

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Joseph J. Kesselman             http://pages.prodigy.com/NY/keshlam/
"This note is a production of Novalabs Consulting, which is solely       
responsible for its content. Opinions not necessarily those of IBM."

In <4p1es9$10ms@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, jimlang@ibm.net     (Jim Lang) writes:
>In <DsELx0.EE3@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, aksood@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Anoop Sood) writes:
>>Hi,
>>I just bought a NEC hard disk 2010A which has 2010 MB.  Fdisk in Warp  sees the disk
>>as only having 1996 MB disk space.  Do I need any special drivers with this
>>harddisk or does warp not recognize anything above 2 gigs.
>Actually, that sounds about right.  A manufacturer advertises the largest size 
>they can to impress the consumer, and ignores the fact that once it is 
>formatted, it will have somewhat less.  Not as bad a 25watt stereo having 
>"100 watts peak power," but close.  You don't need a special driver, but a 
>shotgun for the manufacturer might help.  Or some sort of standards (never.)

A good way to find out how much space you will actually get on a hard disk
when you format it, is to remember that a salesmans "Megabyte" is exactly one
million bytes, whereas a computer megabyte is 1,048,576 bytes, (2 to the power
of 20). Thus a harddisk advertised as 2010 Mb actually has room for exactly
1916 Mb.

/*-----------------------------*\
|  Peter Hugosson               |
|  Stockholm, Sweden:           |
|  "The Venice of Scandinavia"  |
\*-----------------------------*/

No, all is well -- some "byte counters" work with 1,000 bytes / KB, and
some work with 1,024 bytes / KB.  This is approximately the ratio
between 2010 and 1996.  Same number of bytes, counted two different
ways.

-- 
Andrew R. Lazarewicz
Boston College, lazarewi@bcvms.bc.edu, 617-552-8326, -8388 (FAX)
SciReN,         alaz@world.std.com,    617-321-9766 (Voice & FAX)

In message <DsELx0.EE3@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> -
aksood@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Anoop Sood)Mon, 3 Jun 1996 03:05:24 GMT
writes:
:>
:>Hi,
:>I just bought a NEC hard disk 2010A which has 2010 MB.  Fdisk in Warp  sees the disk
:>as only having 1996 MB disk space.  Do I need any special drivers with this
:>harddisk or does warp not recognize anything above 2 gigs.
:>
:>Any help would be appreciated.
:>
:>Thanks
:>Anoop
:>aksood@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
:>-- 
:>Anoop Sood
:>aksood@cayley.uwaterloo.ca
:>***************************
:>

I dunno, but that sounds more like Pre-Formatted Capacity relative to
Post-Formatted Capacity...  For example: I have a HD that's advertised
as "340 MB", but its actual capacity after it was formatted was 327 MB.

In <4p2e0e$ris@watnews2.watson.ibm.com>, keshlam@prodigy.com (Joe Kesselman) writes:

<--snip-->

>This is one place where OS/2 has major advantages, by the way. 
>The old "made for 20MB disks" FAT design is _hugely_ inefficient at handling
>large partitions, since it has to increase the size of its allocation unit in
>order to cover the whole partition with a fixed-maximum-size table. There
>are a few simple formulas to figure out the result, but on large drives FAT
>can wind up wasting an average of 8-16KB per file. Compare that to HPFS,
>which always allocates in unites of 512 bytes and hence has average waste
>closer to 256 bytes per file. (There's some overhead as well, but that's
>the right order of magnitude.)
>
>In other words, using FAT on a large partition is going to waste much of
>the disk space you paid for, and HPFS won't. Among its many other
>advantages.
>
>It's possible Microsoft's other filesystems are more efficient than FAT;
>I haven't heard any details about them. But using FAT on a large drive
>is NOT the way to go!

Just FYI, NTFS is a filesystem that works much like HPFS.  It uses a fixed 
cluster size (I think it's 512 bytes) and so wastes much less space.  BTW, 
I believe there is HPFS support in NT, though I don't know that first-hand.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>Joseph J. Kesselman             http://pages.prodigy.com/NY/keshlam/
>"This note is a production of Novalabs Consulting, which is solely       
>responsible for its content. Opinions not necessarily those of IBM."
>

Jim Lang
Student    (ALWAYS!)
Mathematician   (SOON!)
Team-OS/2
#include standard_disclaimer.h

In <4p96m8$2oc6@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, jimlang@ibm.net (Jim Lang) writes:
>In <4p2e0e$ris@watnews2.watson.ibm.com>, keshlam@prodigy.com (Joe Kesselman) writes:
>
><--snip-->
>
>>This is one place where OS/2 has major advantages, by the way. 
>>The old "made for 20MB disks" FAT design is _hugely_ inefficient at handling
>>large partitions, since it has to increase the size of its allocation unit in
>>order to cover the whole partition with a fixed-maximum-size table. There
>>are a few simple formulas to figure out the result, but on large drives FAT
>>can wind up wasting an average of 8-16KB per file. Compare that to HPFS,
>>which always allocates in unites of 512 bytes and hence has average waste
>>closer to 256 bytes per file. (There's some overhead as well, but that's
>>the right order of magnitude.)
>>
>>In other words, using FAT on a large partition is going to waste much of
>>the disk space you paid for, and HPFS won't. Among its many other
>>advantages.
>>
>>It's possible Microsoft's other filesystems are more efficient than FAT;
>>I haven't heard any details about them. But using FAT on a large drive
>>is NOT the way to go!
>
>Just FYI, NTFS is a filesystem that works much like HPFS.  It uses a fixed 
>cluster size (I think it's 512 bytes) and so wastes much less space.  BTW, 
>I believe there is HPFS support in NT, though I don't know that first-hand.

It includes HPFS support but not for long. Windows NT 4.0 does not have
official support for OS/2 any more.

-- Harri
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Harri Kaukovuo                          "Nuoruuden voi tuhlata muttei saastaa"
142 Elm Street #204                             -Pelle Miljoona
San Mateo, Ca 94401,USA             Email: tiijahar@dsp.com