By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and exchange private messages with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Not really a problem; just kind of a question...

I was curious about how much space directories/directory entries used on an NTFS drive (because I wanted to estimate the amount of space truly available on a flash drive; but it turns out that the flash drive was not formatted with the NTFS files system so the following tests turned out to be irrelevant). So I checked the amount of used/free space on an NTFS volume, recorded the values, allocated a new directory, checked the values again, and they were exactly the same as they had been before I had created the directory. So I CD'd into the new directory, created a 1-byte file, and checked the used/free space on the volume yet again, and they were still exactly the same. So I created a relatively small number of 1-byte files in that directory, and checked the used/free space still again, and they were still exactly the same. Well, this surprised me quite a bit until I remembered that small files and directories in Windows NT and its successors (such as Windows XP and Windows 7) are placed directly in the Master File Table, which has a fixed size to start (although it can "grow", but, somewhat ironically, in Windows NTFS file systems, at least prior to Windows 7 (which I don't know about), the Master File Table can't shrink). Well, the question is this: Why does the @FileSize[...,...,a] function, when used for small files, report the cluster size for the volume when that has no relevancy at all for small (such as 1-byte) files?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Similar threads