Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:04:06 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@rocketmail.com> Cc: Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bootable ext. USB SSD for backup Message-ID: <20170317100406.b8e3d390.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20170316213722.139560c8@archlinux.localdomain> References: <20170316194612.GA1748@c720-r314251> <33953.128.135.52.6.1489694167.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> <92024f3c-2ab3-1741-97de-36455ca56b7e@gmx.net> <20170316213722.139560c8@archlinux.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 21:37:22 +0100, Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions wrote: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 21:11:53 +0100, Martin S. Weber wrote: > >Toshiba is clearly underselling the disk. > > I don't think so, I suspect that some bytes are reserved to compensate > borked memory locations. Few years ago, I read that SSDs that are sold with size n are actually produced as size 2 * n due to high failure rate during production... The 1000 vs. 1024 factor problem aside, it might also be that marketing TB are calculated with "Windows" file system overhead in mind (actually usable for user files vs. occupied disk space with FS data, metadata, directories, and actual files). > GParted mentions 223.57 GiB * 1024 * 1024 = 234,430,136.32 bytes. > MBR, file system entries might take some space, too. OTOH the complete > capacity shouldn't shrink ;). It's a _magical_ disk where data loss leads to more usable disk space for user files. ;-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170317100406.b8e3d390.freebsd>