File won't copy to thumb drive

[GhengisKhan]

I've got something strange that I've come across... I'm trying to copy a 9Gb backup file to a usb thumb drive so that I can restore a laptop using Acronis TrueImage, but I've run into a problem... every time I try and copy this 9Gb file over to this 16Gb USB thumb drive, it is giving me an error saying that there isn't enough space on the drive, when the drive is empty and is showing as 14.9Gb in Windows... any help?

 

[Tiporaro]

Is this a quality drive or a random brand/cheap usb drive? Only reason I ask is because I recall some cheap usb drives being sold as X capacity (and registering as that much), but not having actually that much storage.

Edit: If you're sitting there with it, you may as well also try reformatting it and seeing if NTFS makes a difference vs FAT32.

 

[GhengisKhan]

it is a 16Gb drive, but actually has 14.9Gb, and I have copied other files to it, totaling nearly 14.5Gb, so I know it is working, but even with the drive reformatted and empty, this one 9Gb file won't transfer...

 

[Tiporaro]

Well, yes, Windows showing 14.9 is expected, but in any case, you already answered my other question - whether you had filled it up before.

That being said, if I'm remembering correctly wouldn't you have a file size limit under FAT32 that would cause the problem you're having? I'd still say try changing file system on the usb drive and see what happens.

 

[Loafdogg420]

Tip is correct, switch to ntfs and you'll be able to copy those large files to the drive.

 

[akode]

just fyi, its 4gb limit on fat32

 

[extide]

Yeah it is because it's FAT32, you can't have files bigger than 4GB on fat32.

 

[GhengisKhan]

That being said, if I'm remembering correctly wouldn't you have a file size limit under FAT32 that would cause the problem you're having? I'd still say try changing file system on the usb drive and see what happens.

this did it. forgot to set to ntfs when I formatted it. /facepalm

 

[Tiporaro]

this did it. forgot to set to ntfs when I formatted it. /facepalm

haha, we all have those days. Usually I just remind myself that its better to have had an easily correctable mistake from a temporary brain freeze as opposed to a serious problem that takes a lot more effort to troubleshoot and fix. In any case, glad to hear you got it working =)

 

[SirMaster]

it is a 16Gb drive, but actually has 14.9Gb, and I have copied other files to it, totaling nearly 14.5Gb, so I know it is working, but even with the drive reformatted and empty, this one 9Gb file won't transfer...

It's a 16GB drive and it's actually 16GB.

Looking at your screenshot I see 16 billion bytes and NIST (who sets the standards) says a Gigabyte is 1 billion bytes.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

It's not 14.9GB, its 14.9GiB which is exactly equal to 16GB.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=16GB+in+GiB

 

[cbutters]

I can't tell you HOW MANY times I have seen some of our "computer experts" at work run into this problem and cannot figure it out.... lol I always help them out

The fact that thumb drives generally come from the factory formatted as FAT32 and average file sizes are much larger now than they used to be means this ends up being a very common issue.

It is a shame that larger than 4GB files do NOT work on FAT32, because FAT32 ends up being generally a bit quicker than NTFS on most thumb drives... I suspect that this is the reason that Microsoft put out the exFAT file system.... all the speed benefits of FAT32, but large file size support... too bad nobody can hardly use it since it isn't supported in many scenarios... Oh well, we now have USB 3.0 becoming mainstream.... making it bearable to use USB devices for storage again!

 

[devman]

It's a 16GB drive and it's actually 16GB.

Looking at your screenshot I see 16 billion bytes and NIST (who sets the standards) says a Gigabyte is 1 billion bytes.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

It's not 14.9GB, its 14.9GiB which is exactly equal to 16GB.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=16GB+in+GiB

Which is a load of crap. No one was using GB as 1 billion bytes before hard drive and RAM manufactures started doing it. JEDEC put an end to that nonsense in RAM manufacturing.

1GB is and will always be 1024 MB = 1024 x 1024 kB = 1024 x 1024 x 1024 bytes. Gibibyte can go to hell .

 

[SirMaster]

Which is a load of crap. No one was using GB as 1 billion bytes before hard drive and RAM manufactures started doing it. JEDEC put an end to that nonsense in RAM manufacturing.

1GB is and will always be 1024 MB = 1024 x 1024 kB = 1024 x 1024 x 1024 bytes. Gibibyte can go to hell .

Hard drive manufacturers have used base 10 since 1997 when the standard was decided on by IEC, IEEE and NIST. They used it before then too, but it was up to them because there was no international standard back then.

Currently Windows is the only big operating system still incorrectly labeling data. OSX and Linux kernels have used base 10 for awhile.

The only people who screwed up were RAM manufacturers because they have to build RAM in base 2 and Operating Systems for not following the standard for awhile.

I'm a software engineer and I don't see the problem with base-10 for hard drives.

 

[Trepidati0n]

The only people who screwed up were RAM manufacturers because they have to build RAM in base 2 and Operating Systems for not following the standard for awhile.

Probably the most silly thing i'll hear today by saying "they are screwed up because they HAVE to do it that way". Next thing you will say is human screwed up by breathing oxygen. How else do you build RAM? Please..enlighten me. Show me a base 10 RAM structure.

When you do things in ways that are not natrual...you get results that just don't make sense. Sorry..while base 10 math is cool, ramming it down the throats in a system where it makes no sense is foolish and retarded. But as we get furhter down the technology road map and people understand less and less of the crap they are using (even though they claim to be experts because they know how to find an app)...this shit will keep occuring.

Seriously...if it was really about base 10...a byte would be 10 bits. It isn't..it is about a bunch of old fucks on a committee. This is almost as stupid as when Motorola made the most significant bit start with 0 so they could right from left to right.

 

[SirMaster]

Probably the most silly thing i'll hear today by saying "they are screwed up because they HAVE to do it that way". Next thing you will say is human screwed up by breathing oxygen. How else do you build RAM? Please..enlighten me. Show me a base 10 RAM structure.

When you do things in ways that are not natrual...you get results that just don't make sense. Sorry..while base 10 math is cool, ramming it down the throats in a system where it makes no sense is foolish and retarded. But as we get furhter down the technology road map and people understand less and less of the crap they are using (even though they claim to be experts because they know how to find an app)...this shit will keep occuring.

Seriously...if it was really about base 10...a byte would be 10 bits. It isn't..it is about a bunch of old fucks on a committee. This is almost as stupid as when Motorola made the most significant bit start with 0 so they could right from left to right.

That's not what I meant. I said the RAM manufacturers screwed up by mis-labeling their products GB instead of GiB... Not they they built their RAM incorrectly. Of course they built it the only way they could, in powers of 2.

But not using the defined standard is not cool in my book. Without standards good software engineering would be impossible so trust me, I know the value of a good standard.

They choose to use GB because it was "close enough" and because common people understand it better. Both terrible reasons IMO.

And because they did that you get people like the OP thinking their 16GB flash drive is anything less when it's really not...

I'm not ramming anything down anyone's throat. I work in the computer field myself and everyone I know also understands and respects the standard. It hasn't changed in over 15 years. If you are still not following it that's your own problem. Everyone else has already adjusted and all new software we write uses the appropriate measurements when we mean GB or when we mean GiB.

Back before 1997, before they standardized the measurements there wasn't a standard because it wasn't a large enough difference to truly matter. That has no longer been the case for many years now. The gap between base 10 and base 2 is only going to grow.

Even JEDEC amended their standard saying their prefixes of mega, giga, etc are: "this practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated" And they refer to the IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 standards.

I'm not saying we are all supposed to use base10 for everything in computers. We are absolutely supposed to use base 2, but we need to call them Gibibytes and label them GiB because that's simply what they are. They are not metric "Giga", they never were and never will be. I'm sure I don't have to tell you how long the metric system has been around and computers clearly don't fall into that system.