You buy 1TB (1000GB) HDD

>you buy 1TB (1000GB) HDD
>you get 931GBs instead
Why the fuck is this allowed?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1216842
forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?t=234805
twitter.com/AnonBabble

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

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

what the fuck are you talking about?

>Buy 5 TB HDD
>It displays as 4.5 TB

Did you mean Tebibyte?

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

1 TB = 1x10^12 B

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

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

what car is it

> listen to untagged music

There's a difference between Gigabyte and Gibibyte.

Looks like a toyota.

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

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

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.

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

>it's retarded
Windows is, yes.

Because you touch yourself at night. Faggot.

Exactly this. Windows is known for getting this wrong.

But which one is a jiggybit?

>
>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

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

nick rochefort pls get out

>NTFS
>Not garbage

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

It's a Mazda 3 2013 and later.

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

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

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.

Where are you getting these numbers from?

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

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.

>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

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.

clean your laptop

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

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

Then use xfs you microsoft shill.

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

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

>What is root reserved space setting

>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.

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

Are you retarded?

>Taking the bait

You better check those, retard.

Fag.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

Am I being baited right now?

Nice bait or you must be apart of that REDarded tracker

>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.

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.

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

>"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.

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

>1000GB
Good

>931GiB
Good

>931GB
Incorrect and misleading

nothing to do with filesystems, shill

...

except OP is a fag who drives auto.

>available drive space is nothing to do with filesystems

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

Shoo.

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

>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

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

>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.

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

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

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

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

>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

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?

How the fuck did you get in this board?

>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

To be fair, kg is mass :^)

gee i wonder who could be behind this

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

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!

>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.

I just fucking gave you two links explaining ext4 partition on 1TB drive is 916GiB
read this:
Mine is actually encrypted and it's 917GiB. Doesn't make a difference.

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

>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.

Look up the difference between bit and byte

-- 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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

>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

Shut up nigger

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, user.

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

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

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

Why the fuck is this allowed?

>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

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

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

...

please don't derail the thread

why the fuck is this shitty toyota so popular on Sup Forums
are you gay, son?

it's a mazda tardlet

TOYOTA NIGGER