[comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d] Unformatted vs. Formatted capacity

Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (11/21/90)

Unformatted capacity of a disk is a measure of the raw information storage
ability of the media.  Number of tracks times number of sectors per track
times bytes per sector equals unformatted capacity.
 
Formatted capacity of a disk is the available data storage regions AFTER
such "overhead" areas as sync bytes, track header bytes, sector header and
intersector gaps, FAT tables, directories, and boot sectors have been written
to the disk.
 
This is why there's usually quite a difference between the "unformatted"
and "formatted" capacity figures.  The difference can be quite striking on
a very high capacity hard drive for instance...
 
BobR

kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) (11/24/90)

In article <36113@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes:
>Unformatted capacity of a disk is a measure of the raw information storage
>ability of the media.  Number of tracks times number of sectors per track
>times bytes per sector equals unformatted capacity.

    Correct.


>Formatted capacity of a disk is the available data storage regions AFTER
>such "overhead" areas as sync bytes, track header bytes, sector header and
>intersector gaps,

    Correct


>                  FAT tables, directories, and boot sectors have been written
>to the disk.

    Incorrect.  Only the data necessary for allowing physical sector
read/writes is considered overhead.  The rest of these examples are data.



-- 
 _
Kevin D. Quitt         demott!kdq   kdq@demott.com
DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St.   Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266
VOICE (818) 988-4975   FAX (818) 997-1190  MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last

                96.37% of all statistics are made up.

bumby@math.rutgers.edu (Richard Bumby) (11/27/90)

In article <1014@demott.COM> kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:

> In article <36113@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes:
   . . . <undisputed matted deleted> . . .
> 
> >                  FAT tables, directories, and boot sectors have
> >been written to the disk.
> 
>     Incorrect.  Only the data necessary for allowing physical sector
> read/writes is considered overhead.  The rest of these examples are data.
> 
	I agree that the original interpretation is incorrect, but the
confusion may come from the fact that the chkdsk program in DOS (at
least in version 2.11) excludes all of the goodies up to the ROOT
directory from its count.  

Here is a sample of chkdsk output on my 640K "hard-RAM"

              632832 bytes total disk space = 618K
                3072 bytes in 3 directories  (excluding root)
              612352 bytes in 43 user files
                1024 bytes in bad sectors    (an interesting story) 
               16384 bytes available on disk

The "bad sector" is my own creation.  It seems that the pointer to
cluster #100H kept getting corrupted into 000, so I declared that
cluster bad to keep it from being allocated.
-- 

--R. T. Bumby ** Math ** Rutgers ** New Brunswick ** NJ08903 ** USA --
  above postal address abbreviated by internet to bumby@math.rutgers.edu
  voice communication unreliable -- telephone ignored -- please use Email