weird effect with new HDD in PS3

I bought a WD 250GB SATA drive for my 20GB system and successfully installed it. However, after formatting the first time, it states I have 203GB out of 232GB. I understand that I'm not gonna get the whole 250GB (kinda like how the X360 hard drive has 13GB out of 20Gb available) but isnt 44GB a bit much for cache?

thanks

 

Well the actual formatted capacity is always less. This HDD only has 232GB as well. The rest is probably for caching, and may increase exponentially (ie 2GB in the 20GB, 6GB in the 60GB).

 

Some of it is file system overhead, most of it is dead sectors.

 

a very common misconception is that much of the HDD "goes away" to cache and system files etc.

This is untrue.

It depends on HOW the capacity is calculated by a) the machine and b) the manufacturer.

I have personally come accrosss WD disks that are labelled 40GB, and one model is 37.5 GB, whereas the other has 40.1GB under windows.

It's the marketing that sort of "rounds-up" the numbers or doesn't depending on the model of the HDD and the manufacturer's desire.

 

Part of it might have been automatically partitioned, either out of the box or by the PS3, and only one partition got formatted. When I installed a 250GB HDD in my last PC, after installing Windows it told me that that I only had like 103GB available. It had partitioned it into two pieces for some reason, so I had to format the second partition as another drive.

BTW, does the PS3 just use a standard SATA cable for its HDD or did you have to hack it up?

 

standard. Sony wanted it to be easily inter-changeable with laptop HDDs

 

Tsk tsk tsk...He said that some of it is gone with formatting, ie 232GB drive, but also that only 203GB of that 232GB is avaliable, suggesting that something is taking up those extra 29GB.

 

and I repeat, the capacity on the label will differ from the actual capacity depending on how the file system calculates GBs.

 

Due to changes to the way sizes are calculated, 1KB may not equal 1KB. Kilo is the SI way of writing 1000, however in the old days as 1024 was the nearest number to 1000 in a binary format this was decied on how a Kilobyte should be measured. It's now been changed so Kilo, Mega, Giga and Tera are quanities of 1000 and Kibi, Mebi, Gibi and Tebi are quanities of 1024. (http://www.iec.ch/zone/si/si_bytes.htm)

Hard drive makers use Gigabytes to measure hard disc sizes so

250G(iga)B(ytes) * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 = 250,000,000,000 bytes

However computers still use 1024 to measure sizes so

250,000,000,000 bytes / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 = 232G(ibi)B(ytes)

So the figure you got is correct and you are getting the full 250GB as such...

 

Thanks Jamtex for supporting my view with accurate numbers =)

 

Yes, Jamtex and Barc0de are right.

My 80GB HDD on the PS2, after being formatted to the PS2 filesystem, says 74.5 GB Total.

It's the same in computers. Like Jamtex explained it's just how computers measure.

 

Oh yeah, my HDD does the same.

What about the missing 29GB though? 203/232 still means something's using up that space.

 

midgets

 

Yeah, file system cluster headers... Like 512Bytes stored takes slightly more. The same exist for CDROM... On a cdrom, there are 2,5KB used for 2KB stored... So when you write 650MB on a disc, you write, in reality, more than you think ^^. (not precise values, wont bother checking).

Jamtex > I never understood why they decided to go with Ki / Gi thing... After all, when it comes to bytes & bits, its always a deal of 1024, never 1000... So the Ko/Go syntax might definitively disappear once everybody will fallow the rule ^^, rah, stupid rule certainly written by techless dudes.

 

The whole 1024 vs. 1000 is nothing more than how computers actually handle numbers (base 2 numbers) vs. how "computer/technically challenged people" think how it should work (base 10 numbers). You could also think of it as technical reality vs. marketing reality (and guess which one wins...).

 

Thank you all for the responses.

I now understand that taking 250,000/1024 would not give me the correct answer for maximum space. I should have been using 250,000,000,000/1024/1024/1024=232.83064etc.

Still the "used" 29GB makes me wonder what it is being used for, and why I can't use it?

when I first got the system the 20GB HD read 18GB/20GB. I want to assume this means that 2GB is for something like software or cache beyond the ram for easier loading or 'Something'.

So when I installed the 250GB HD, I expected the same 2GB to be used for whatever (mentioned above). I was surprised when more was used, and now am wondering what it is used for?

 

well do the math.

2 at 20 GB

29 at 232

What do these figures have in common? *tip: look for a ratio*

 

Thanks but that does not help. 2Gb missing at 20GB is 10% of a total 100%.
29GB missing from 232GB is 12.5% of a total 100%. that means there is no proper ratio.

But i wnat my original question answered. What would be forced to use a percentage? that is the main question. Lets just say that the percentages were both 12.5% missing each time.

The question is what is using said 12.5%?

I am done with this thread because I don't think anyone knows really and I am just going to accept what can't be changed. I guess this cat does not get his curiousity sated today.

thank you all for your help comments.

 

There are probably multiple partitions, one of which being a cache as you first suspected. With 25GiB cache, a game could prevent a lot of wear on the BR drive.