SSD properties show less space...

This is on a new T400 with a Samsung 128GB SSD. When I look at the properties of the drive it displays total space as 108GB, not 128GB.

I read somewhere that there is a reserve for what I'll call "bad sectors" and that it would only show about 120GB but does this seem right?

I searched and didn't find anything on this so if someone can point to info on it I would appreciate it... Thanks.

 

What size does it say in bytes? Also, there could be a hidden recovery partition. Regardless, you won't be able to get any more free space unless you wipe the whole thing.

 

Go to control panel -> administrative tools -> computer management -> storage -> disk management

 

...or start > run > diskmgmt.msc

 

A simple Binary to Decimal conversion would have your 128GB SSD be 119.2GB (128 * 10^9 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024). This accounts for a chunk of the discrepancy as storage companies and OS vendors specify a GB differently (10^9 vs. 1024^3).

The remaining 11GB that you are missing is almost certainly tied up in the preboot environment and recovery record. You can regain this after burning your own recovery DVDs.

 

Thank you for the information. You guys are great. I ran diskmgmt.mcs and I can account for all the space now. The binary conversion was spot on at 119.24 GB. Thanks again for the help!

 

The size differential refers to "unformatted" size as opposed to formatted size. The reference to unformatted size is a measure of actual capacity. Formatting the disk will take some of that.
Renee

 

Jon explained the base 2 vs base 10 above.

 

And I explained the difference in formatted size as opposed to unformatted size above which was involved in the OPs original question as there was more difference than just binary/decimal.

 

only a few hundred bytes are lost to formatting.   the concept of losing megabytes upon megabytes to formatting has always been incorrect.   the MBR, VBRs, and GUID partition table(s) only take up a few thousand bytes total and have no significant impact in a drive measured in billions of bytes.

let's use one of my SAS drives as an example.   seagate claims it to have a 73.4 GB raw (unformatted) capacity.   windows reports it to have a 73,405,558,784 byte / 68.3 GiB formatted capacity.   if we convert GB to GiB, (((73,405,558,784 / 1024) / 1024) / 1024) we wind up with 68.3 GiB, which is exactly what windows reports it as having available.   nothing is lost here.   as jon said above, the discrepancy comes from storage manufacturers measuring in GB and windows reporting in GiB.

this is an excellent write-up on the discussion:
http://www.pcguide.com/intro/fun/bindec-c.html

 

Oh, you are incorrect. NTFS is put on the disk by formatting and NTFS consists of the following files:

o NTFS Partition Boot Sector
o NTFS Master File Table (MFT)
o NTFS File Types
o NTFS System Files
o NTFS Multiple Data Streams
o NTFS Compressed Files
o EFS - Encrypting File System
o NTFS Sparse Files


"the MBR, VBRs, and GUID partition table(s) only take up a few thousand bytes total and have no significant impact in a drive measured in billions of bytes.

let's use one of my SAS drives as an example. seagate claims it to have a 73.4 GB raw (unformatted) capacity. windows reports it to have a 73,405,558,784 byte / 68.3 GiB formatted capacity. if we convert GB to GiB, (((73,405,558,784 / 1024) / 1024) / 1024) we wind up with 68.3 GiB, which is exactly what windows reports it as having available. nothing is lost here. as jon said above, the discrepancy comes from storage manufacturers measuring in GB and windows reporting in GiB."

As much as 10 to 20 percent of a full disk is the ntfs file system.

Eric, stop and think about ancillary data for each file that the file system keeps including pointers to file extents. The file system keeps quite a bit of data about the file systems on it for each file. This includes file protections also. It has to go somewhere. You can get a quick view on this by downloading Perfectdisk, which is a disk compressor. I know what the ntfs file system looks like.

How do I know this? I'm a VMS career engineer. VMS was the first virtual 32 bit machine and later 64 bit systems out there. VMS was in the field a full quarter of a century before they came out with Windows then another five years for NTFS. Windows copied and improved on us.

Renee

 

renee, we aren't talking about files and file system data.   this discussion is about formatted drive size and the difference between gigabytes and gibibytes.   the process of formatting a drive does not eat up the "10 to 20 percent" you claim.   this simply is not possible.   this has been the case since magnetic storage was first created.

how do i know this?   application.   i can go out and buy a 73.4 GB drive, format it for any file system type (NTFS, FAT 32, EXT4, HFS+... doesn't matter), and be left with 73.4 billion bytes of usable storage space to store my files.

if you want to discuss the efficiency of various file systems then your point would apply.   but, for the topic of this discussion (formatting and the difference between gigabytes and gibibytes), your point unfortunately does not apply.

 

Here's a thought for you that helps show the differences more clearly. If I store a single file, how big can it be? The answer's roughly that 68.3 GiB. If instead, I were to ask how many 1 MB files I can store, *that* answer changes based on the file system.

 

What we talking is complex because it isn't a constant ratio which I reflected in my first post or another way of putting it is in terms of overhead. The ratio of overhead increases as the size of the user file decreases so they are inversley proportional .

But the overhead is also preallocated during disk initialization or formatting. If additional space is needed it will be allocated.

Sorry Erik. You may not have been talking about this but I was. It would be best for you to not say what I was talking about since obviously you have different opinions than I do.

Renee

 

renee, you're missing my point and arguing a completely different subject.   the author of this thread asked about formatted drive size.   the discussion is about formatted drive size.   what you're talking about is the efficiency of file systems.   the type of file system a drive uses absolutely does not change the formatted drive size.

reference the number i've highlighted below.   this does not change regardless of the amount of data on a drive or how the drive (or partition) is formatted, regardless of being EXT2 in 16K clusters or NTFS in 4MB clusters.   the highlighted number is static.   that's the point we (as in others in this thread, not you) are trying to make.



again, if you want to discuss the efficiency impact of various file systems (EXT*, FAT, NTFS, HFS, etc.) then that's fine.   it is, however, irrelevant to what everyone else is discussing in this thread.

to recap, formatting does not change the highlighted number above.   this number is static.   i could empty the drive or fill it with data and the highlighted number absolutely remains the same.   that is the topic of this discussion.

ok?

 

Erik,
I see what you are talking about, but cosider that root of the question. You are quite right, the file system does not change size when formatting a disk. But the OP was thrying to figure out where the space was going when formatting a disk, so I told him.
Renee