Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!att-ih!occrsh!uokmax!rob
From: rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K. Shull)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Physical Storage Amounts on Different Hard Disks (Size of Folders)
Message-ID: <1253@uokmax.UUCP>
Date: 3 May 88 17:31:00 GMT
References: <1988May2.130641.357@mntgfx.mentor.com>
Reply-To: rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K. Shull)
Organization: University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Lines: 20
Keywords: Hard disk folder storage size

In article <1988May2.130641.357@mntgfx.mentor.com> tomc@mntgfx.mentor.com (Tom Carstensen) writes:
>
>I noticed that each folder on the CMS we slightly larger
>than the same folder on the XP20.  This eventally added up 
>to 1M for all the folders.
>
The problem, so I understand, is in the way that the Mac OS keeps track of
usage. Apparently a 16 bit number is used, allowing only 65536 blocks to be
allocated. Thus, anything larger than about 65 meg can't be allocated in
1k blocks.

The CMS 102 allocates everything in 2k blocks. I would assume that their larger
drives (like the 300) would allocate in even larger blocks. BTW, try copying
to/from a floppy. The difference is even more dramatic (the floppy is allocated
in .5k blocks)
	Robert
-- 
Robert K. Shull
University of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network
ihnp4!occrsh!uokmax!rob		CIS 73765,1254		Delphi	RKSHULL
Opinions contained herein in no way reflect those of the University of Oklahoma.