July 15, 201510 yr I know the answer to this, but for the life of me I can't remember why, and I need some help. The question following the "why" is going to be "can I change it to something more reasonable?" For example: the entirety of the game backups I have (lots of little files) totals 129GB in size, but 178GB "on disk." That's a lot of lost space, and I'd like to make it up if possible. If not, oh well! Thanks in advance!
July 15, 201510 yr Slack space. No, you can't easily change it. If it's truly backups and not live files, you can save a bunch of that by compressing all the little files into archive chunks, rar, zip, tar, whatever you are comfortable with.
July 15, 201510 yr Author What was the setting that I originally used to get it this way? I almost directly recall looking it up and setting it to whatever. And branching off that, how would I change it, despite its difficulty? I'd thought of placing everything into .rar's, but that's not my ideal scenario, so we'll see. Thanks!
August 30, 201510 yr You'd have to search on how to format a particular file system using what ever minimum allocation size you desire. However, a lot of analytics go into deciding which particular allocation size is most efficient for the average size of files. For example, with the ever increasing average file size now a days, the minimum allocation size tends to increase because when using small allocation sizes, the file system's overhead becomes a significant percentage of the actual file size. Thus, a large file could actually take up far more space on disk because of the extra overhead involved even though you're saving the space on the small files. For the vast majority of people, the default settings that the file system designer's chose will probably be the best settings.
September 1, 201510 yr Author I think I'll just go with the RAR'ing route. Didn't want to, but it seems I'm up --it creek without a paddle right now. Thanks for the help all!
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.