Regardless of the way the disk is formatted (HFS or HFS+ on the Mac side,
FAT16, FAT32 or NTFS on Windows) a file must be written to blocks and will
occupy any single block in it's entirety. Certain utilities allow you to
designate a block size as small as 1K, but by default they are typically
larger.
Regards,
Irena Solomon
Technical Support Specialist
Dantz Development Corporation
925.253.3050
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 8/14/00 8:37 AM, andrew at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I thought this was only true for HFS? (not HFS+)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Irena Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 11:10 AM
> Subject: Re: a simple (admittedly newby) question
>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> This has to do with the difference between the logical size of a file (or
>> how many bytes of data in contains) and it's physical size (or how much
>> space it takes up on the disk on which it resides.)
>>
>> Every Macintosh volume only formats to 65,636 allocation blocks,
> regardless
>> of it's capacity. For instance, a 128MB hard drive formats to 65,636 1kb
>> blocks, whereas a 1G hard drive formats to 65,636 16kb blocks. A file
> that
>> takes only 1kb on the 128MB drive, when transferred to the 1G drive, will
>> appear as a 16kb file. Files fill the full allocation block, even if
> there
>> is as little as a single byte of data in the block, since different files
>> are not allowed to co-habit in the same blocks. For more information on
>> black allocation size, see Tech Note 412 at:
>>
>> http://www.dantz.com/index.php3?SCREEN=technotes
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Irena
>> Technical Support Specialist
>> Dantz Development Corporation
>> 925.253.3050
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> on 8/13/00 11:23 PM, Steve LaMantia at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks. I've recently been delighted to discover
>>> Retrospect and also this mailing list, and I thought
>>> I'd jump right in with a newby question.
>>>
>>> (BTW, my system is Windows 95, OSR2.)
>>>
>>> In making selectors, when using file size as a
>>> selector criteria, you get a choice as to:
>>>
>>> - file size on disk
>>> - file size used
>>>
>>> What's the difference between the terms
>>> "on disk" and "used"? I understand that files have
>>> "slack space", so that depending on your file system's
>>> cluster size even, say, a 3-byte file actually takes
>>> up, say, 1024 bytes on your drive. And I suspect
>>> that's exactly the difference between the terms "on
>>> disk" and "used". It's just that I'm not sure which
>>> would be which, is all. In the example I gave, would the
>>> "file size on disk" be 3 bytes and the "file size used"
>>> be 1024 bytes, or is it the other way around?
>>>
>>> BTW, as a Retrospect newby, I do have a handful of
>>> other probably really basic questions that have come
>>> up while experimenting with the software in order to
>>> learn it. Is this an okay place to ask those? Thanks.
>>>
>>> Steve LaMantia
>>> Seattle, WA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Archives: <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
>>> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Archives: <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
>> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
