Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> writes:
>> I grew suspicious of the capacity of my Lexar 64GB flash drive, so I
>> write raw data to it until it was full (i.e. no partitions, no file
>> system). Took nearly five hours.
>>
>> Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
>
> Their website says “some of the listed storage capacity is used for
> formatting and other purposes and is not available for data storage”,
> but really, they should be advertizing no more than the available
> capacity.

But wouldn't that vary somewhat according to the filesystem put on it? They
could perhaps base it on whatever filesystem (usually FAT32 or exFAT) they
put on it. All filesystems store some metadata about files, but some will
be more efficient about how they do it. (Already, I can see one way
FAT-type filesystems would have a leg up on the competition: they store no
file-ownership information.)

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us wrote:
> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> writes:
>>> I grew suspicious of the capacity of my Lexar 64GB flash drive, so I
>>> write raw data to it until it was full (i.e. no partitions, no file
>>> system). Took nearly five hours.
>>>
>>> Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
>>
>> Their website says “some of the listed storage capacity is used for
>> formatting and other purposes and is not available for data storage”,
>> but really, they should be advertizing no more than the available
>> capacity.
>
> But wouldn't that vary somewhat according to the filesystem put on it? They
> could perhaps base it on whatever filesystem (usually FAT32 or exFAT) they
> put on it. All filesystems store some metadata about files, but some will
> be more efficient about how they do it. (Already, I can see one way
> FAT-type filesystems would have a leg up on the competition: they store no
> file-ownership information.)
>

I have the box from a 1TB USB HD sitting here. On the back in small
print it says,
"One Terabyte [TB] means one trillion bytes. Total available capacity
will vary based on operating environment, and your results and storage
capacity will vary accordingly."

Which seems to cover all these bases.
Dave

On 04-Jan-23 4:24 am, scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us wrote:
> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> writes:
>>> I grew suspicious of the capacity of my Lexar 64GB flash drive, so I
>>> write raw data to it until it was full (i.e. no partitions, no file
>>> system). Took nearly five hours.
>>>
>>> Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
>>
>> Their website says “some of the listed storage capacity is used for
>> formatting and other purposes and is not available for data storage”,
>> but really, they should be advertizing no more than the available
>> capacity.
>
> But wouldn't that vary somewhat according to the filesystem put on it? They
> could perhaps base it on whatever filesystem (usually FAT32 or exFAT) they
> put on it. All filesystems store some metadata about files, but some will
> be more efficient about how they do it. (Already, I can see one way
> FAT-type filesystems would have a leg up on the competition: they store no
> file-ownership information.)
>

While its true the the total size of files that can be put on a drive
depends on the filesystem, that's a user's choice (well, in theory
anyway). It doesn't alter the underlying data capacity, which is what I
was measuring, and I could, if I were so minded, use that entire
capacity to store my data, if I do without partitions and file systems.

Sylvia.

On 04-Jan-23 8:13 am, Dave Yeo wrote:
> scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us wrote:
>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> writes:
>>>> I grew suspicious of the capacity of my Lexar 64GB flash drive, so I
>>>> write raw data to it until it was full (i.e. no partitions, no file
>>>> system). Took nearly five hours.
>>>>
>>>> Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
>>>
>>> Their website says “some of the listed storage capacity is used for
>>> formatting and other purposes and is not available for data storage”,
>>> but really, they should be advertizing no more than the available
>>> capacity.
>>
>> But wouldn't that vary somewhat according to the filesystem put on
>> it?  They
>> could perhaps base it on whatever filesystem (usually FAT32 or exFAT)
>> they
>> put on it.  All filesystems store some metadata about files, but some
>> will
>> be more efficient about how they do it.  (Already, I can see one way
>> FAT-type filesystems would have a leg up on the competition: they
>> store no
>> file-ownership information.)
>>
>
> I have the box from a 1TB USB HD sitting here. On the back in small
> print it says,
> "One Terabyte [TB] means one trillion bytes. Total available capacity
> will vary based on operating environment, and your results and storage
> capacity will vary accordingly."
>
> Which seems to cover all these bases.
> Dave

I don't think it covers a base where achieving the stated capacity is
impossible.

Sylvia.

scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> writes:
>>> I grew suspicious of the capacity of my Lexar 64GB flash drive, so I
>>> write raw data to it until it was full (i.e. no partitions, no file
>>> system). Took nearly five hours.
>>>
>>> Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
>>
>> Their website says “some of the listed storage capacity is used for
>> formatting and other purposes and is not available for data storage”,
>> but really, they should be advertizing no more than the available
>> capacity.
>
> But wouldn't that vary somewhat according to the filesystem put on it?

No. We’re talking about the total number of bytes that can be written to
the drive.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/