J
JW0914
Guest
Does anyone know why 594GB of data (which registers as 594GB in size and size on disk in Windows) would equate out to 920GB as size on disk, an increase of 64.57% (FreeNAS does recognize it as 594GB in size, but 920GB as size on disk, an exorbitant amount of wasted space)?
Before transfer, the size of the folder on FreeNAS was ~440ish GB, now 1.4TB, with only 594GB of actual data transferred.
Folder properties on Windows, as well as the capacity utilized from FreeNAS (before transfer used space was ~440ish GB, now 1.4TB (copied to "Data"), with only 594GB of actual data transferred).
Before transfer, the size of the folder on FreeNAS was ~440ish GB, now 1.4TB, with only 594GB of actual data transferred.
Folder properties on Windows, as well as the capacity utilized from FreeNAS (before transfer used space was ~440ish GB, now 1.4TB (copied to "Data"), with only 594GB of actual data transferred).
- Property Window 1 (External HDD; Windows):
Size: 594GB (638,060,674,332B)
Size on Disk: 594GB (638,856,667,136B)
Contents, Files:444,838 Contents, Folders: 39,383
Size on Disk: 594GB (638,856,667,136B)
Contents, Files:444,838 Contents, Folders: 39,383
- Property Window 2 (Network Share; FreeNAS)
Size: 594GB (638,060,674,332B)
Size on Disk: 920GB (988,161,245,184B)
Contents, Files: 444,838 Content, Folders: 39.384
(1 extra empty folder)
All of which brings me back to my question: Why would a zfs array (created with force 4k) register 594GB of data as 920GB, a 64.57% increase in size?Size on Disk: 920GB (988,161,245,184B)
Contents, Files: 444,838 Content, Folders: 39.384
(1 extra empty folder)
- No snapshots have been taken (even if they were, that value has no correlation to the folder size; correlation goes the opposite direction)
- Each folder contains the exact same 444,838 files, with one showing the data size as 594GB yet the other shows the exact same 444,838 files as 902GB (FreeNAS)
- Prior to data transfer, used space on the dataset in question was ~440GB, after file transfer 1.4TB, a difference of 900GB+
- Since the 594GB within this folder was stored on a 750GB drive (698GB formatted), I'm certain the 444,838 files are indeed 594GB in size.
- 920 - 594 = 326GB, or 64.57%
- Since the 594GB within this folder was stored on a 750GB drive (698GB formatted), I'm certain the 444,838 files are indeed 594GB in size.
- Prior to data transfer, used space on the dataset in question was ~440GB, after file transfer 1.4TB, a difference of 900GB+
- Data is measured by two different formulas, but regardless of which formula you use, the data neither increases nor decreases in size. Since this folder containing 594GB of data (not compressed) resided on a 750GB HDD (~698GB formatted) with a 100GB file and ~3.5GB of space free, this irrefutably shows the data is indeed 594GB in size. Unix based systems do not compute data used the same way Windows based systems do, however, if a 750GB HDD only has ~698GB free once formatted and on that drive resides a folder containing 594GB of data, coupled with an additional 100GB file, leaving ~3.5GB of free space on the drive, it can be shown irrefutably the data in question is no larger than 594GB.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator: