>you buy 1TB (1000GB) HDD >you get 931GBs instead Why the

>>59639342
Windows and Hard drive makers use different ways of measuring 1TB

>>59639342

Don't you buy 1000GB but Windows displays it as 1000GiB ?

>>59639461
what the fuck are you talking about?

>>59639461
>Buy 5 TB HDD
>It displays as 4.5 TB

>>59639342
Did you mean Tebibyte?

>>59639504
Google it dummy we don't have to spoon-feed you

>>59639342
1 TB = 1x10^12 B

HDD manufacturers are correct, Microsoft and most programs don't report numbers correctly.

>>59639570
Also it doesn't help NTFS takes a small chunk of space for some reason.
Use anything else and you get your full 1TB

>>59639342
what car is it

>>59639342
> listen to untagged music

>>59639504
There's a difference between Gigabyte and Gibibyte.

>>59639656
Looks like a toyota.

File: 2014-Mazda3-interior.jpg (2MB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1360px

>>59640068
No it's a Mazda 3
(not OP but was curious)

>>59639342
> make a RAID 6 array of 6 3TB HDDs
> get 11.6TB filesystem
Why the fuck is this allowed?

>>59640025
it doesn't say gibibyte in windows though, just GB. If it's showing GiB numbers but write GB after it then it's retarded.

File: snoop.png (156KB, 324x324px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 324x324px

>>59640137
>use dual parity raid system
>doesn't understand why 6TB disappear

>>59640184
>it's retarded
Windows is, yes.

>>59639342
Because you touch yourself at night. Faggot.

>>59640184
Exactly this. Windows is known for getting this wrong.

>>59640025
But which one is a jiggybit?

>>59639629
>>>59639570
>Also it doesn't help NTFS takes a small chunk of space for some reason.
>for some reason.
wow it's almost like it's the only file system that's not fucking garbage

>>59641135
ext4 is the only file system that's not fucking garbage

nick rochefort pls get out

File: 1490475727972.png (317KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 600x580px

>>59641135
>>59641135
>NTFS
>Not garbage

>>59641652
xfs is better for large collections of large files. Take my word for it or look it up.

inb4 zfs, no I personally don't like it

>>59639656
It's a Mazda 3 2013 and later.

>>59641652
Nice confirming that 2 and 3 were indeed garbage. We will wait for v5 for you to understand what garbage v4 is.

>>59641820
>Single NTFS partition on 1TB drive
>932GiB usable space
>Single ext4 partition on 1TB drive
>916GiB usable space
Yes, you can kill yourself now

File: proper_unit_measurement.png (6KB, 200x87px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 200x87px

>>59639342
Use an OS that actually follows the ISO standard for measuring storage you faggot.

Because they aren't actually selling you 1 TB

They're selling you 1,000,000,000,000 bytes.
1,000,000,000,000 / 1024 = 976,562,500 kilobytes
976,562,500 / 1024 = 953,647 megabytes
953,647 / 1024 = 931 gigabytes

Get it now?
Everyone does this.
SD cards, USB flash drivers, etc.

>>59642255
Where are you getting these numbers from?

>>59642263
>standard
>used on less than 5% of all computers out there

>>59642287
They are selling you one TERABYTE, microsoft just decided to use base 12 instead of the ISO standard base 10. What microsoft claims is one terabyte is actually one TEBIBYTE.

>>59642287
>Because they aren't actually selling you 1 TB
Except they literally ARE selling you 1 TB
SI prefix tera=10^12
1 TB = 1e12 bytes

OS's such as Windows show the value in Tebibytes, but wrongly denote it as TB instead of TiB

>>59642333
Microsoft ignoring international standards doesn't make the standard any less valid. Also apple follows the proper standard iirc so it's more than 5% of computers.

>>59639342
clean your laptop

>>59642297
my desktop computer and my server
ext filesystems waste so much space while ntfs is simple

>>59642400
but they're showing you the real size in Gigabytes, faggot.
That's the actual, real capacity of a TB drive: 931 GB.

>>59642454
Then use xfs you microsoft shill.

>>59642455
What are you on about? "Actual, real capacity" of a 1 TB drive is 1 TB.
One Terabyte equals 1000 Gigabytes.
One kilobyte equals 1000 bytes.

What must be confusing you is that Windows is showing you is the value in Tibibytes [TiB] and Gibibytes [GiB], while wrongly representing them as Terabytes [TB] and Gigabytes [GB].

One Tebibyte equals 1024 Gibibytes.
One kibibyte equals 1024 bytes.

How much Gibibytes are in a Terabyte? Exercise left to the reader

>>59642479
Just because I use the best client OS available it doesn't mean I'm a microshit shill, faggot.
kys

>>59642255
>What is root reserved space setting

>>59642609
>best client OS
Anyone who isn't suffering from severe baby duck syndrome or being paid piles of money would disagree. Your average mom wouldn't want to install linux be she's not gonna try and claim that windows is good, only shills and mentally ill people do that.

>>59642608
>One Terabyte equals 1000 Gigabytes.
No?
1 Terabyte = 1024 Gigabytes

Are you retarded?

>>59640313
>Taking the bait

>>59642646
You better check those, retard.

Fag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

>>59642646
Am I being baited right now?

>>59642608
Nice bait or you must be apart of that REDarded tracker

>>59642722
>calling facts bait
>bringing unrelated websites into the discussion for no reason

Shitty file systems.

Speaking of file systems, Apple's just released the most efficient one ever made, APFS, ditching their arguably crap HFS.

>>59642645
linux is for retards that can't afford to get a cheap msdn key for windows.

>"hurr, i can't do a thing in windows I can do in gahnoo/+=loonix"

yes, there is an issue, it's between pc and chair.

>>59639342

you didn't get 931GB, you got 931GiB.

>>59642833
>"hurr, i can't do a thing in windows I can do in gahnoo/+=loonix"
When did I ever claim that you couldn't do something in Windows? I just said that Windows is objectively bad.

>>59639570
I'm fine with programs using binary units as long as they make it clear.

>1000GB
Good

>931GiB
Good

>931GB
Incorrect and misleading

>>59642765
nothing to do with filesystems, shill

File: a.png (14KB, 510x93px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 510x93px

>>59642255

>>59640090
except OP is a fag who drives auto.

>>59643126

>available drive space is nothing to do with filesystems

Are you mentally fucking retarded? Who the fuck let you in here?

Shoo. >>>/v/

>>59643245
did i say that?
no, the discrepency between "1TB" and "931GiB" has nothing to do with filesystems

>>59643272
>discrepency between "1TB" and "931GiB"
to be clear, there is no difference, 1TB is 931GiB, it's the same size, only measured with different units
it's like confusing 1kg with 2.2lb, they're the same weight, just different units

>>59643168
this has nothing to do with missing 931-916GiB

root@Thor# tune2fs -m 0 /dev/mapper/data_crypt 
tune2fs 1.42.12 (29-Aug-2014)
Setting reserved blocks percentage to 0% (0 blocks)
root@Thor# mount | grep data_crypt
/dev/mapper/data_crypt on /data type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
root@Thor# df -h | grep /data
/dev/mapper/data_crypt    917G  702G  215G  77% /data

It's a full disk partition

>>59643547
>data_crypt
>inside /dev/mapper
No shit, you shill, you're using dm-crypt or something which obviously has overhead since it's an ext4 partition inside a luksCrypt partition.
I use the same setup and get the same available size.

>>59643665
God damnit you're fucking retarded.
https://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1216842
kill yourself

>>59643665
https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?t=234805
ext4 is just shit (sub)filesystem

micro$haft pajeets do not know how to count bytes obviously

>>59643741
You did not provide a retort, is that ext4 partition inside a lukscrypt or is it on the bare metal? I have a Seagate 1TB, 931GiB that shows up as 916GiB, and dm-crypt partitions also show up in /dev/mapper. So unless you're saying you somehow have an unencrypted partition called data_crypt in /dev/mapper instead of /dev/sdX...

the free market would fix it if it were allowed

>>59643547
>The most significant overhead comes from the inode tables, so it obviously depends on how many inodes you allocate. With the default options, every 128mb of disk gets 2 mb ( 8192 x 256 bytes each ) of inodes, or 1.6% overhead.
probably this

in FAT/NTFS, they use an "MFT" instead, which expands dynamically, which has the disadvantage of being prone to fragmentation

>>59643796
it doesn't matter if it's encrypted or not
ext4 wastes 15GiB. That's all this is about.
NTFS doesn't do that.

Got that?

>>59642646
How the fuck did you get in this board? >>>/v/

>>59643854
>NTFS doesn't do that.
it will once you actually start putting things on the drive and it fills up it's MFT

the only difference here is that ext4 allocates the inode table ahead of time, during filesystem creation
this way it need not worry about finding spaces to places to put it later, nor can they become fragmented

you can specify a smaller share of space, if you don't need as many as the default allows for

>>59643351
To be fair, kg is mass :^)

File: goodgoy.gif (41KB, 171x199px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 171x199px

>>59639342
gee i wonder who could be behind this

>>59644080
potatoes, tomatoes
i understand the difference, but for all common uses "mass" and "weight" are interchangable

>>59644114
Literally just fucking wit ya.

I can't believe there are tardos like OP who don't understand the difference between powers-of-10 and powers-of-2 for data size. This is taught in every rudimentary architecture class in CS ever. Most students knew about it before the class at my uni!

>>59643854
>it doesn't matter if it's encrypted or not
So it is encrypted. Yes, it does matter. dm-crypt has overhead, so obviously your partition shrinks down in size, regardless of what's inside is ext4, ntfs or even free space.
Try adding a 1TB disk with ext4 WITHOUT dm-crypt, let me know then.

>>59644238
>>59644238
I just fucking gave you two links explaining ext4 partition on 1TB drive is 916GiB
read this:
>>59644050

Mine is actually encrypted and it's 917GiB. Doesn't make a difference.

>>59644238
not him, but it's the inode table, i tested it

default;

% df -h /dev/loop0p1
Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/loop0p1    916G   77M  916G   1% /media/loop0p1-5b36c531-1276-4748-8

and after reduing the inode count a bit;

% df -h /dev/loop0p1
Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/loop0p1    927G   77M  927G   1% /media/loop0p1-959401b5-f48c-483e-b

>>59644238
>dm-crypt has overhead, so obviously your partition shrinks down in size, regardless of what's inside is ext4, ntfs or even free space.
Yes -- it might shrink your partition by as much as 16 kilobytes. Not something to lose sleep over.

>>59639504
Look up the difference between bit and byte

>>59644369
-- ps. it's important to note that inodes are a critical function of the filesystem, they contain file metadata, all filesystems have at least something similar
there are performance advantages to be had by allocating space for them ahead of time, though you might lose a little bit of space if you don't end up using them all
if you have an idea of how many files you're going to put on it, you can tweak the numbers as to reduce potential waste

>>59644441
Look up what is bait and how to avoid taking it.
God damnit, this entire thread is a bait for incompetent /v/ cunts. Of course I know what's the difference between GibiByte and GigaByte you retarded sack of shit nigger with down syndrome.

>>59644348
I never questioned that. I said that dm-crypt also reduces it, so you're attributing your entire change to the fs and ignoring the encryption overhead. I'm totally ok with the idea that the inode space for ext4 takes up a considerable chunk right away, I'm not ok with you attributing your entire size loss to ext4.

>>59644422
It was gigabytes for me - yes, with tunefs setting the reserved space to 0.

>>59644493
>I totally knew, guys
>I was just pretending, guys

>>59639461
you buy 1000GB, but windows displays the size in GiB (but displays it as "GB", hence the constant confusion)

>>59644552
In other words, windows lies to you about your disk space. Because some men just want to watch the world burn.

>>59644549
>I never questioned that. I said that dm-crypt also reduces it, so you're attributing your entire change to the fs and ignoring the encryption overhead. I'm totally ok with the idea that the inode space for ext4 takes up a considerable chunk right away, I'm not ok with you attributing your entire size loss to ext4.
encryption alone doesn't have any overhead, all dm-crypt adds is a miniscule header/superblock
it's completely inconsequential at the gibibyte scale

"dm-crypt has overhead" isn't false, but it's not even close to a major factor in what he's talking about

>>59644493
Shut up nigger

File: 12002958_919696074779317_6585441971617000548_n.jpg (95KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 960x640px

>>59644588
It's just a partition header? So the files themselves don't have overhead, my 14.5GiB video will occupy 14.5GiB in a dm-crypt partition?
I had no idea. Thanks, anon.

>>59644549
The only thing I've learnt today is that you can actually change the amount of reserved inodes at the cost of fragmentation.
>>59644617
you shut the fuck up

>>59644629
yea, encryption just transforms the data, it doesn't make it bigger
and dm-crypt works at a volume level, so it only needs to store metadata for the one block (the whole volume), which the superblock takes care of
you can think of it as being a single inode

>>59639342
>Ken Ashcorp
>Thinkpad so dirty you can actually see the dust accumulated on it

Why the fuck is this allowed?

>>59644655
>The only thing I've learnt today is that you can actually change the amount of reserved inodes at the cost of fragmentation.
almost
changing the inode count has no effect on fragmentation
EXT4's method of preallocating them insead of dynamically allocating them like NTFS is what reduces fragmentation
the inode count just serves as a limit to how many files (technically file fragments) can be stored on the volume

File: 1468871771793.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>59644681
Sorry, let me fix this.
Is Alice in Chains acceptable for you, master?

>>59639342
>Buy 3 2TB HDD and put them in raidz1
>Only get 4TB
Wtf?

>>59644736
please don't derail the thread

>>59644747
why the fuck is this shitty toyota so popular on 4chan
are you gay, son?

>>59644782
it's a mazda tardlet

>>59644800
TOYOTA NIGGER

File: a.png (455KB, 450x596px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 450x596px

>>59644815

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20090611-00/?p=17933

>>59639342
>Not knowing the difference in a GB and a GiB,

>>59644927
tell that to windows

>>59644946
Answered here
>>59644864

>>59639342
>you use /v/indows
>you complain on /g/
Why the fuck is this allowed?

>>59642403
Don't forget phones and servers.

>>59643185
its a fucking mazda 3 not an M3

>>59645086
basically everyone besides microsoft and hdd manufacturers

>>59645210
HDD manufacturers also follow the standard. They correctly write gigabyte when they mean gigabyte.

>>59639342
>buying an automatic transmission mazda
lmao at your life.

>>59640090
does that display fold down or something? It would annoy me, jutting into my peripheral vision and obfuscating part of the windsheild(but it also having navigation means you'd probably want to keep it visible... Shame it stands up so much over the dash)

File: cardock.jpg (594KB, 1080x1216px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 1080x1216px

>>59639656
2016 Mazda 3.

Surprised somebody reposted my pic.

>>59643854
XFS my nigga.

Or ZFS if you want data integrity but don't care for capacity.

>>59642415
>clean your laptop
>>59644681
>Thinkpad so dirty you can actually see the dust accumulated on it
Welcome to Wyoming, enjoy your complimentary wind and dust.