Mixing
My SanDisk USB flash drive shows that 43GB is used when I just copied a 10GB file after formatting
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I recently bought a SanDisk 128GB USB flash drive.
And after formatting the USB flash drive in exFAT format, I copied a folder whose capacity is around 10GB. There are lots of small files in it, so it took some time.
However, when I see in the Windows Explorer after copying the folder, it says that around 43GB of the storage is occupied and now only 70GB of the storage is free to use.
What is happening and how should I deal with it? Is my USB flash drive physically broken?
It is still weird because when I copied a single file with 7 GB capacity, it showed the remaining capacity correctly at around 110 GB available..
usb
edited 4 mins ago
JakeGould
30.4k1093134
asked 6 hours ago
Felix Lee
316
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I recently bought a SanDisk 128GB USB flash drive.
And after formatting the USB flash drive in exFAT format, I copied a folder whose capacity is around 10GB. There are lots of small files in it, so it took some time.
However, when I see in the Windows Explorer after copying the folder, it says that around 43GB of the storage is occupied and now only 70GB of the storage is free to use.
What is happening and how should I deal with it? Is my USB flash drive physically broken?
It is still weird because when I copied a single file with 7 GB capacity, it showed the remaining capacity correctly at around 110 GB available..
usb
edited 4 mins ago
JakeGould
30.4k1093134
asked 6 hours ago
Felix Lee
316
3
If you right click on a small file and go to properties what does it display for "size" and "size on disk"
– Scott Chamberlain
6 hours ago
1
Possible duplicate of Please explain wasted space on an exFAT formatted external hard drive
– phuclv
1 hour ago
Why is "size on disk" much bigger than "size" when I copy data from NTFS to exFAT?
– phuclv
56 mins ago
You saida 10GB filein the title but actually copied a10GB folder of small files. They're completely different. If your cluster size is 4KB and your files are 1KB on average then obviously it'll take 40GB on disk. By default the allocation size of exFAT is much higher than other file systems
– phuclv
40 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I recently bought a SanDisk 128GB USB flash drive.
And after formatting the USB flash drive in exFAT format, I copied a folder whose capacity is around 10GB. There are lots of small files in it, so it took some time.
However, when I see in the Windows Explorer after copying the folder, it says that around 43GB of the storage is occupied and now only 70GB of the storage is free to use.
What is happening and how should I deal with it? Is my USB flash drive physically broken?
It is still weird because when I copied a single file with 7 GB capacity, it showed the remaining capacity correctly at around 110 GB available..
usb
edited 4 mins ago
JakeGould
30.4k1093134
asked 6 hours ago
Felix Lee
316
I recently bought a SanDisk 128GB USB flash drive.
And after formatting the USB flash drive in exFAT format, I copied a folder whose capacity is around 10GB. There are lots of small files in it, so it took some time.
However, when I see in the Windows Explorer after copying the folder, it says that around 43GB of the storage is occupied and now only 70GB of the storage is free to use.
What is happening and how should I deal with it? Is my USB flash drive physically broken?
It is still weird because when I copied a single file with 7 GB capacity, it showed the remaining capacity correctly at around 110 GB available..
usb
usb
edited 4 mins ago
JakeGould
30.4k1093134
asked 6 hours ago
Felix Lee
316
edited 4 mins ago
JakeGould
30.4k1093134
asked 6 hours ago
Felix Lee
316
edited 4 mins ago
JakeGould
30.4k1093134
edited 4 mins ago
JakeGould
30.4k1093134
edited 4 mins ago
JakeGould
30.4k1093134
30.4k1093134
asked 6 hours ago
Felix Lee
316
asked 6 hours ago
Felix Lee
316
asked 6 hours ago
Felix Lee
316
316
3
If you right click on a small file and go to properties what does it display for "size" and "size on disk"
– Scott Chamberlain
6 hours ago
1
Possible duplicate of Please explain wasted space on an exFAT formatted external hard drive
– phuclv
1 hour ago
Why is "size on disk" much bigger than "size" when I copy data from NTFS to exFAT?
– phuclv
56 mins ago
You saida 10GB filein the title but actually copied a10GB folder of small files. They're completely different. If your cluster size is 4KB and your files are 1KB on average then obviously it'll take 40GB on disk. By default the allocation size of exFAT is much higher than other file systems
– phuclv
40 mins ago
add a comment |Â
3
If you right click on a small file and go to properties what does it display for "size" and "size on disk"
– Scott Chamberlain
6 hours ago
1
Possible duplicate of Please explain wasted space on an exFAT formatted external hard drive
– phuclv
1 hour ago
Why is "size on disk" much bigger than "size" when I copy data from NTFS to exFAT?
– phuclv
56 mins ago
You saida 10GB filein the title but actually copied a10GB folder of small files. They're completely different. If your cluster size is 4KB and your files are 1KB on average then obviously it'll take 40GB on disk. By default the allocation size of exFAT is much higher than other file systems
– phuclv
40 mins ago
3
3
If you right click on a small file and go to properties what does it display for "size" and "size on disk"
– Scott Chamberlain
6 hours ago
If you right click on a small file and go to properties what does it display for "size" and "size on disk"
– Scott Chamberlain
6 hours ago
1
1
Possible duplicate of Please explain wasted space on an exFAT formatted external hard drive
– phuclv
1 hour ago
Possible duplicate of Please explain wasted space on an exFAT formatted external hard drive
– phuclv
1 hour ago
Why is "size on disk" much bigger than "size" when I copy data from NTFS to exFAT?
– phuclv
56 mins ago
Why is "size on disk" much bigger than "size" when I copy data from NTFS to exFAT?
– phuclv
56 mins ago
You said
a 10GB file in the title but actually copied a 10GB folder of small files. They're completely different. If your cluster size is 4KB and your files are 1KB on average then obviously it'll take 40GB on disk. By default the allocation size of exFAT is much higher than other file systems– phuclv
40 mins ago
You said
a 10GB file in the title but actually copied a 10GB folder of small files. They're completely different. If your cluster size is 4KB and your files are 1KB on average then obviously it'll take 40GB on disk. By default the allocation size of exFAT is much higher than other file systems– phuclv
40 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
You already answered your own question: There are lots of small files in it
Every file on an exFAT volume takes at least one blocksize. So a file of a single byte in size takes 4K - a size amplification of 1:4096. You are seing a size amplification of 4.3, which is very plausible with lots of small files.
You can check this hypothesis by packing the files with WinRAR and the zero compression settings, then copy this file to the USB stick.
answered 6 hours ago
Eugen Rieck
8,85121925
I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
– Felix Lee
1 hour ago
It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
– Sam Varshavchik
1 hour ago
1
NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
– zwol
46 mins ago
Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
– phuclv
44 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
As the other answer suggested, use an archiver, but I'll recommend using 7z instead of WinRAR because it's free, and also you can avoid installing any third-party archivers if you use Windows' built-in "Send to > Compressed (zipped) folder" option when you right-click files and folder. It's faster than 7z but it archives slightly slower.
In case you need to store mostly JPEG images or something else that doesn't compress at all, you should benefit from using 7z and picking the "no compression" option explicitly.
Using .zip archive format over .rar or .7z is important because Windows supports browsing them as if it was just any other folder (albeit with some limitations).
If you are okay with not being able to browse files like that on the flash drive, you can use another format, but the important part about the files not taking so much space is having a single archive file instead of all the original files separately.
answered 18 mins ago
Wildcard licensee
11
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
You already answered your own question: There are lots of small files in it
Every file on an exFAT volume takes at least one blocksize. So a file of a single byte in size takes 4K - a size amplification of 1:4096. You are seing a size amplification of 4.3, which is very plausible with lots of small files.
You can check this hypothesis by packing the files with WinRAR and the zero compression settings, then copy this file to the USB stick.
answered 6 hours ago
Eugen Rieck
8,85121925
I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
– Felix Lee
1 hour ago
It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
– Sam Varshavchik
1 hour ago
1
NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
– zwol
46 mins ago
Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
– phuclv
44 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
You already answered your own question: There are lots of small files in it
Every file on an exFAT volume takes at least one blocksize. So a file of a single byte in size takes 4K - a size amplification of 1:4096. You are seing a size amplification of 4.3, which is very plausible with lots of small files.
You can check this hypothesis by packing the files with WinRAR and the zero compression settings, then copy this file to the USB stick.
answered 6 hours ago
Eugen Rieck
8,85121925
I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
– Felix Lee
1 hour ago
It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
– Sam Varshavchik
1 hour ago
1
NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
– zwol
46 mins ago
Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
– phuclv
44 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
You already answered your own question: There are lots of small files in it
Every file on an exFAT volume takes at least one blocksize. So a file of a single byte in size takes 4K - a size amplification of 1:4096. You are seing a size amplification of 4.3, which is very plausible with lots of small files.
You can check this hypothesis by packing the files with WinRAR and the zero compression settings, then copy this file to the USB stick.
answered 6 hours ago
Eugen Rieck
8,85121925
You already answered your own question: There are lots of small files in it
Every file on an exFAT volume takes at least one blocksize. So a file of a single byte in size takes 4K - a size amplification of 1:4096. You are seing a size amplification of 4.3, which is very plausible with lots of small files.
You can check this hypothesis by packing the files with WinRAR and the zero compression settings, then copy this file to the USB stick.
answered 6 hours ago
Eugen Rieck
8,85121925
answered 6 hours ago
Eugen Rieck
8,85121925
answered 6 hours ago
Eugen Rieck
8,85121925
answered 6 hours ago
Eugen Rieck
8,85121925
8,85121925
I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
– Felix Lee
1 hour ago
It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
– Sam Varshavchik
1 hour ago
1
NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
– zwol
46 mins ago
Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
– phuclv
44 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
– Felix Lee
1 hour ago
It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
– Sam Varshavchik
1 hour ago
1
NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
– zwol
46 mins ago
Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
– phuclv
44 mins ago
I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
– Felix Lee
1 hour ago
I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
– Felix Lee
1 hour ago
It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
– Sam Varshavchik
1 hour ago
It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
– Sam Varshavchik
1 hour ago
1
1
NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
– zwol
46 mins ago
NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
– zwol
46 mins ago
Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
– phuclv
44 mins ago
Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
– phuclv
44 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
As the other answer suggested, use an archiver, but I'll recommend using 7z instead of WinRAR because it's free, and also you can avoid installing any third-party archivers if you use Windows' built-in "Send to > Compressed (zipped) folder" option when you right-click files and folder. It's faster than 7z but it archives slightly slower.
In case you need to store mostly JPEG images or something else that doesn't compress at all, you should benefit from using 7z and picking the "no compression" option explicitly.
Using .zip archive format over .rar or .7z is important because Windows supports browsing them as if it was just any other folder (albeit with some limitations).
If you are okay with not being able to browse files like that on the flash drive, you can use another format, but the important part about the files not taking so much space is having a single archive file instead of all the original files separately.
answered 18 mins ago
Wildcard licensee
11
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
As the other answer suggested, use an archiver, but I'll recommend using 7z instead of WinRAR because it's free, and also you can avoid installing any third-party archivers if you use Windows' built-in "Send to > Compressed (zipped) folder" option when you right-click files and folder. It's faster than 7z but it archives slightly slower.
In case you need to store mostly JPEG images or something else that doesn't compress at all, you should benefit from using 7z and picking the "no compression" option explicitly.
Using .zip archive format over .rar or .7z is important because Windows supports browsing them as if it was just any other folder (albeit with some limitations).
If you are okay with not being able to browse files like that on the flash drive, you can use another format, but the important part about the files not taking so much space is having a single archive file instead of all the original files separately.
answered 18 mins ago
Wildcard licensee
11
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
As the other answer suggested, use an archiver, but I'll recommend using 7z instead of WinRAR because it's free, and also you can avoid installing any third-party archivers if you use Windows' built-in "Send to > Compressed (zipped) folder" option when you right-click files and folder. It's faster than 7z but it archives slightly slower.
In case you need to store mostly JPEG images or something else that doesn't compress at all, you should benefit from using 7z and picking the "no compression" option explicitly.
Using .zip archive format over .rar or .7z is important because Windows supports browsing them as if it was just any other folder (albeit with some limitations).
If you are okay with not being able to browse files like that on the flash drive, you can use another format, but the important part about the files not taking so much space is having a single archive file instead of all the original files separately.
answered 18 mins ago
Wildcard licensee
11
As the other answer suggested, use an archiver, but I'll recommend using 7z instead of WinRAR because it's free, and also you can avoid installing any third-party archivers if you use Windows' built-in "Send to > Compressed (zipped) folder" option when you right-click files and folder. It's faster than 7z but it archives slightly slower.
In case you need to store mostly JPEG images or something else that doesn't compress at all, you should benefit from using 7z and picking the "no compression" option explicitly.
Using .zip archive format over .rar or .7z is important because Windows supports browsing them as if it was just any other folder (albeit with some limitations).
If you are okay with not being able to browse files like that on the flash drive, you can use another format, but the important part about the files not taking so much space is having a single archive file instead of all the original files separately.
answered 18 mins ago
Wildcard licensee
11
answered 18 mins ago
Wildcard licensee
11
answered 18 mins ago
Wildcard licensee
11
answered 18 mins ago
Wildcard licensee
11
11
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1370780%2fmy-sandisk-usb-flash-drive-shows-that-43gb-is-used-when-i-just-copied-a-10gb-fil%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
3
If you right click on a small file and go to properties what does it display for "size" and "size on disk"
– Scott Chamberlain
6 hours ago
1
Possible duplicate of Please explain wasted space on an exFAT formatted external hard drive
– phuclv
1 hour ago
Why is "size on disk" much bigger than "size" when I copy data from NTFS to exFAT?
– phuclv
56 mins ago
You said
a 10GB filein the title but actually copied a10GB folder of small files. They're completely different. If your cluster size is 4KB and your files are 1KB on average then obviously it'll take 40GB on disk. By default the allocation size of exFAT is much higher than other file systems– phuclv
40 mins ago