Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
KISS: go the simple route, unless there's a good reason not to.
First I compared exFat to NTFS for "most free space" (Both test where set allocation size to 512 bytes or the .5kb option):
256gb in exFat (254,283,077,120 bytes FREE OF 254,345,181,696 bytes TOTAL)
256gb in NTFS (256,191,294,976 bytes FREE OF 256,348,026,880 bytes TOTAL)
Seems like NTFS has more space?
Second I did a 3rd test to see if NTFS has more or less space with a different "allocation unit size" and was set to 4k instead of .5k
256gb in NTFS (256,246,046,720 bytes / 256,348,024,832 bytes FREE)
Third NTFS cluster size 64kb
256gb in NTFS (256,347,996,160 bytes / 256,347,996,160 bytes FREE)
So the higher the cluster the more free space?
I'm confused as I though smaller cluster size is supposed to give you more space in trade of slower speed.
Read and write seems to be about same with cluster size .5kb and 4k on the same game(Tried on Rainbow Six Siege, different solo with bots and multiplayer)
Do yourself a favor & go with KISS. A way to paraphrase it is to take the simplest solution for a given use case. Go simple unltil you have a good reason not to, then go one step more complex.
Either that, or evaluate all the variables. Free space as a function of sector size is only one of those, one of the least important.