An open community 
of Macintosh users,
for Macintosh users.

FineTunedMac Dashboard widget now available! Download Here

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: TTPro 8 (vs. 7.x)
joemikeb #34222 05/12/15 06:38 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Excellent post! Thanks for your insights. smile

But I've now got to ask why "Mac OS X Full Copy Profile 182.44GB" posted here differs by a pretty substantial 22GB from "Mac OS X Full Copy profile .... This requires 205.53 GB...." as per post #33954?

I imagine it's a TTP thing, but do you know what changed between posts?


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: TTPro 8 (vs. 7.x)
artie505 #34232 05/12/15 01:44 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Moderator
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Originally Posted By: artie505
… but do you know what changed between posts?

A beta release.


If we knew what it was we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?

— Albert Einstein
Re: TTPro 8 (vs. 7.x)
artie505 #34236 05/12/15 02:50 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
Originally Posted By: artie505
differs by a pretty substantial 22GB


Cluster overhead, usually. On the average, every file wastes 50% of one cluster, at the end. Divide cluster size by 2 and multiply that by the number of files (usually 500,000+) and that's your statistical average wasted space due to cluster overhead. Also, files require directory entries. Last I looked, each file took an average of around 39 bytes. Bigger directories also consume overhead to themselves. It adds up. Most "used space" counters only count bytes used, (cluster size)*(clusters used). The only time you typically get an accurate size total is when querying a device total, like a volume's total used space or total free space.

I had a laptop here last month that had almost no disk space left, and I was having problems finding where it had gone. It was short about 18gb, which was a lot more than I'd have expected. Turned out to be a crapton of very small temp files in /var/tmp/ that some loopy app had dumped in there. I had temp folders with 56,000 items in them. All those little files, each with their own cluster overhead. DF would not find the used space. I ended up writing a script to find DIRECTORIES that were large in size (physical size, not content count) where I would then look to see if there was a lilliputian problem again. I'd find a directory that DF claimed consumed 28mb of bytes, when it was actually consuming several GB worth of clusters.

Also somewhat related, larger hard drives are now starting to show up that use larger than 512 byte block sizes. (some flash drives in particular) This establishes the smallest possible cluster size and the possible cluster size increment. A seagate 4th I bought recently used 4kb disk blocks instead of 512 byte. (and that causes a few programs to have problems... like a few of my disk scripts!)




I work for the Department of Redundancy Department
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  alternaut, dianne, dkmarsh 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4
(Release build 20200307)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.33 Page Time: 0.019s Queries: 20 (0.014s) Memory: 0.5886 MB (Peak: 0.6402 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-04-28 16:05:49 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS