A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Hardware and Windows XP
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Disk Uses More Space Than Size of Files

Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old October 21st 13, 09:37 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware
external usenet poster
Posts: 18,275
Default Disk Uses More Space Than Size of Files

W wrote:
"VanguardLH" wrote in message
"VanguardLH" wrote ...
In addition, Windows Explorer will never show you the size of Alternate
Data Streams (ADS) added to a file. For example, I can create a .txt
file whose primary data stream chews up only, say 5KB but then add an
alternate data stream that is gigabytes in size. Windows Explorer,
'dir', and other normal file utilities will only show you the size of
the primary data stream.



I found a better utility for scanning for ADS: NirSoft
AlternateStreamView. Strangely, this utility does not agree on all of the
results with the ADS Scanner you mentioned.

Some surprising things I found:

1) Dropbox is using the ADS feature actively, and many dropbox files have up
to 4096 bytes of ADS information attached to them.

2) The AlternateStreamView shows an additional field of
"StreamAllocatedSize". In my boot partition I had a few files where the
actual ADS stream was about 1K but the ADS Allocated Size was about 65K.
Does anyone know if the "allocated size" represents actual disk space in

Most of these files that AlternateStreamView reported large allocation sizes
on were not even seen by ADS Scanner.

Amazingly, it notes that concept here. That StreamAllocatedSize is set aside
for the stream for some reason. I don't know if this idea is intended for
sparse storage, or what they were thinking. You would have thought, if they
were going to waste space, they'd round to the nearest 4K or whatever.


For a stream to work, it would have to have a provision for extending the
storage space later (leading to fragmentation). Pre-allocating a space,
isn't of much use if you don't "guess right" on the size to set aside.
So I'm missing what the big gain is, in having such a feature.


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.