jrfuda
Active Member
This wekend I installed a 300GB HDD ( http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=7L300R0-DT&cat=HDD ) into one of these:
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=HD363N&cat=NET
It's working great and is easily shareable with all my machines and has its own ftp server. I essentially got an "almost' 300GB NAS for about $160 - not a bad deal at all.
However, once I installed teh 300GB disc and used the NAS case's format command, I ended up with only 279GB of space available. The case can only use FAT32 for its FS.
Now, when I map the drive and look at it in Windows, it says:
Capacity: 300,009,586,688 bytes, 279GB
I know there are different ways that folks use to calculate space on drives. The drive manufacturer is made by maxtor. I'm guessing they used the
"300 billion bytes is 300GB" logic,
rather than the
"300 billion bytes /1024 = 292978112 kilobytes /1024= 286111.4375 megabytes /1024 = 279GB" logic.
So who's right maxtor or my OS (winxp pro)? It's not right that there can be two different standards for reporting capacity.
Checking my other drives (a mix of seagate, maxtor and western digital) they're all in the same boat... Their "advertised" volume appears to be based on the number of bytes, not the literal meaning of gigabyte.
I think I've read about this over and over again. I guess, since this is the largest drive I've ever bought that it just seemed more "in my face" since I've actually "lost" more storage than one of my smaller drives (20GB) has all together - so it's the first time I really noticed.
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=HD363N&cat=NET
It's working great and is easily shareable with all my machines and has its own ftp server. I essentially got an "almost' 300GB NAS for about $160 - not a bad deal at all.
However, once I installed teh 300GB disc and used the NAS case's format command, I ended up with only 279GB of space available. The case can only use FAT32 for its FS.
Now, when I map the drive and look at it in Windows, it says:
Capacity: 300,009,586,688 bytes, 279GB
I know there are different ways that folks use to calculate space on drives. The drive manufacturer is made by maxtor. I'm guessing they used the
"300 billion bytes is 300GB" logic,
rather than the
"300 billion bytes /1024 = 292978112 kilobytes /1024= 286111.4375 megabytes /1024 = 279GB" logic.
So who's right maxtor or my OS (winxp pro)? It's not right that there can be two different standards for reporting capacity.
Checking my other drives (a mix of seagate, maxtor and western digital) they're all in the same boat... Their "advertised" volume appears to be based on the number of bytes, not the literal meaning of gigabyte.
I think I've read about this over and over again. I guess, since this is the largest drive I've ever bought that it just seemed more "in my face" since I've actually "lost" more storage than one of my smaller drives (20GB) has all together - so it's the first time I really noticed.