Ever wonder why process is named "BF2142Pace"? - Page 2

Teck · #11 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 01:14 AM

Should put it on the EA-UK forums...

Colin Dean · #12 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brwyatt

Apparently these files are given a specific amount of space to use by the system, but do not fill that whole space. To me, this makes it more believable that this is a kernel-level driver, by allocating more space than is needed, it ensures that the file can not run out of space if it needs to be modified or modify itself, which would add stability.

IIRC, each file object (file or directory) in FAT or NTFS occupies at least 4 KB of space, as that's the smallest block size to which something can be written. It can be larger and not occupy space (something that's 15 KB takes up 15 KB, not 16 KB). Someone with more intricate knowledge of FAT/NTFS could probably shed more light on this.

brwyatt · #13 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 12:38 PM

Ah, such good replies...

First off:Thank you Colin Dean, I forgot that I left the block size at default and didn't make it whatever the smallest size is.

As far as 64-bit versions, just as 32-bit windows is compatible with 16-bit apps, so is 64-bit Windows with 32-bit apps. As far as access to the kernel, that would probably show that it does not directly install INTO the kernel, but rather along side it as a "plug-in" of such, which would be a smarter move to greater stability on the system.

So I guess that the mystery of the weird file sizes is solved, thank you Colin Dean, but now we have to wonder why they would delete it. Also, thanks for the clue Cameraman that can help point us in the correct direction for how the driver work/affects a system.

Cameraman: did you install using Compatibility Mode?

Dopefish · #14 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin Dean

IIRC, each file object (file or directory) in FAT or NTFS occupies at least 4 KB of space, as that's the smallest block size to which something can be written. It can be larger and not occupy space (something that's 15 KB takes up 15 KB, not 16 KB). Someone with more intricate knowledge of FAT/NTFS could probably shed more light on this.

kind of... it depends on what you set your block size too

if you have it set to 4kb... the smallest any data will be is 4kb... so even if it's 1,234 bytes, it's going to take 4,096 bytes (4kb)
if you have it set to 4kb... and the file is larger than 4kb... it will allocate another block... so if the file is 5,432 bytes large... it's going to take 8,192 bytes of space on the disk

use of 4kb is not recommended by me... it would be faster if you deal with lots and lots of small files... but using larger block sizes will improve the performance of larger files... like movies, games, music, etc

so if you use 64kb blocks... the smallest data will be on the drive is 65,536 bytes... so if you have 10 files that are under 1kb in size... it's going to use 64kb * 10... (655,360 bytes [640kb]) rather than 10kb

windows doesnt support the usage of empty space in blocks... only a select few filesystems do... if i recall correctly... freebsd (or maybe *bsd in general) can use empty space in the blocks... i also forget the name they use for it but it's pretty interesting stuff since 1 block can actually contain data for more than 1 file

brwyatt · #15 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 05:48 PM

Yeah. I usually have it set to the smallest possible size to save space and room. When I formatted, I forgot to set the block size. I can't believe I did that.

I still haven't gotten around to doing any "snooping" yet, but I will eventually. If anyone else wanted to help out with it, go right ahead, "divide and conquer."

And since EA deleted that thread, I'm sure they didn't want us to know about it. Should be fun to see EA's reaction if this gets better known than it is now.

Teck · #16 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brwyatt

Yeah. I usually have it set to the smallest possible size to save space and room. When I formatted, I forgot to set the block size. I can't believe I did that.

I still haven't gotten around to doing any "snooping" yet, but I will eventually. If anyone else wanted to help out with it, go right ahead, "divide and conquer."

And since EA deleted that thread, I'm sure they didn't want us to know about it. Should be fun to see EA's reaction if this gets better known than it is now.

Put it on the EA-UK forums and dont say it got deleted last time...

brwyatt · #17 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 08:51 PM

O....k....

But why put it on the UK one? Why not just repost to the US one?

Teck · #18 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brwyatt

O....k....

But why put it on the UK one? Why not just repost to the US one?

Because more people read the UK one and the mods are easy going.....

Cameraman · #19 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 09:23 PM

Maybe they don't delete stuff as much I dunno. Whenever I'm searching for something useful about Battlefield, the posts are usually on the UK one. They actually have intelligent discussions there

Dopefish · #20 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brwyatt

Yeah. I usually have it set to the smallest possible size to save space and room. When I formatted, I forgot to set the block size. I can't believe I did that.

yeah, it will save more space in the end... but with todays harddrive sizes and the need for speed... id rather go with a larger size and lose a little space for the extra performance