Re: 74MB used space after formatting 250GB drive

Just a follow up.

I got rid of the performance problems. I did 2 things. First I tried
reconnecting the cables and then I discovered that the drive was not listed
in my bios. After fixing this the system and drive performance is now
normal. I copied the 20GB in a matter of minitues.

Regarding Mikes statement about trusting the drive. I do agree with him... I
will not trust this drive something critical. On the other hand his
statement was not adding anything new. I wanted to know weather the symptoms
I described should worry me or if they were normal.

My conclusions is that the drive now looks healthy now. But I will only used
for DVD-Rips, DivX, MP3 and recorded TV, which I can accept loosing. I can
always rip the DVD's and CD again.

Thomas

"Thomas Jespersen" <tje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23dWXJZNJGHA.1388@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi
>
> Thanks for you answers.
>
> I just formatted a 20GB partition, and it also has 65MB used space after
> formatting. Gman! This is not a Windows system drive, there are no files
> on the drive what so ever. I think the MB is reserved to the NTFS file
> structure, so it will always be at the beginning of the drive. I just
> tried formatting a 20GB partition on another disk as Fat32 (Format I:
> /fs:Fat32 /q)... and now it only says Used Space = 16.384Bytes,
>
> So I started using the drive 250GB Drive now, and although it works, it
> kill's the performance of my mashing. The processor goes up around 100%,
> and it took 150 min to move the 20GB of data for another disk to this
> disk!!
>
> So something is wrong, but it might be something else. If you have a
> suggestion, feel free to reply. Otherwise I think you answered my
> questions. Used space is quite normal. Thanks.
>
> I'll think I will use the drive for Recorded TV, DVD Rips and other files
> which I can accept loosing, and which I don't use on a daily basic.
>
> Thanks again. Thomas
>
> "gman" <gman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:A585E394-43C0-4620-A842-6B907F99691D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wouldn't be concerned as 71 MB on a 250 gig HD is nothing really, not
>> even
>> 1/10 a gig. Is the 71mb used shown after you have loaded your operating
>> system? If so, then I would assume that is the amount of space
>> required/used
>> by XP to install itself.
>>
>> I am disgusted to see the response you received from this Mike Hall guy
>> who
>> is supposed to be helpful as he is a MS-MVP. He should not be allowed on
>> here if that is the best he can do in the way of reply. No one needs a
>> smart
>> a** or that type of answer when they have a concern. Just hope he
>> doesn't
>> have kids!!! Poor things.
>>
>> gman
>>
>> "Bill" wrote:
>>
>>> What you are seeing is normal.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Thomas Jespersen" <tje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:%23wBIimGJGHA.344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > Hi
>>> >
>>> > I just formatted a 250GB disk. I got the disk form our network
>>> > administrator, because it failed in a RAID system, but he was not sure
>>> > weather the disk was damaged or not.
>>> >
>>> > Here is the result of the format comand:
>>> >
>>> > C:\>format I:
>>> > The type of the file system is NTFS.
>>> > Enter current volume label for drive I: Data
>>> >
>>> > WARNING, ALL DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISK
>>> > DRIVE I: WILL BE LOST!
>>> > Proceed with Format (Y/N)? y
>>> > Verifying 239366M
>>> > Volume label (ENTER for none)? Data
>>> > Creating file system structures.
>>> > Format complete.
>>> > 245111704 KB total disk space.
>>> > 245035780 KB are available.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > First. It took arround 1½ -2 hours to format the drive from the XP
>>> > shell.
>>> > Is this normal?
>>> >
>>> > Second: When I look at the properties of the driver from My Computer,
>>> > It
>>> > says Used Space: 74,4MB. Is this normal? After doing a Quick Format it
>>> > now
>>> > says 71,1MB used!
>>> >
>>> > I think that this is suspicious. But the result of the format doesn't
>>> > say
>>> > anything about bad sectors.
>>> >
>>> > Should I trust this dirve or not?
>>> >
>>> > Thomas
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>


.