Windows 10 Directory size reporting
Scratching my head over this one...
The scenario is a linux server using ext3.
User backs up the director (about 88GB) to a 4TB usb drive connected to a windows 10 machine. The reported director size is about 20GB with a directory/file count about 20% of that expected.
User then plugs the USB into another windows 10 machine (same software build and version) and the software reports the correct size and number of files/directories.
As another check, I plugged it into a Mac, and again the reported size files/directories is correct. It seems to be one machine that is reporting the directory size on the USB drive incorrectly.
The drive is formatted as an NTFS partition.
What am I missing on the machine that is reporting the directory size and file/directory size incorrectly?
Re: Windows 10 Directory size reporting
Don't quite understand the scenario.
How is the linux box involved, and what is "the director" being backed up. Is there any compression involved that one of the boxes doesn't understand?
Re: Windows 10 Directory size reporting
The data is being copied to a USB drive connected to a Linux box. A directory is copied to the drive.
However, when the directory on the drive is looked at on the windows machine one, using properties, the size reported is about 20% of that expected aas are the folder and define count. Put the drive on another Windows 10 machine, or a Mac, and the size and file/ folder count is correctly reported.
It seems to be an issue with the one Windows 10 machine.
Re: Windows 10 Directory size reporting
Permissions? Run Windirstat on both Windows boxes and see what the difference is.
Re: Windows 10 Directory size reporting
Or use Treesize and restart it as Administrator.
Re: Windows 10 Directory size reporting
Update - this seems to be a known issue introduced with build 1803. While I haven't gone into it in any depth, it seems to be realted to path length. The max path length should be 255 characters, and none of the paths on the affected directory come anywhere near that, but bizarrely, shortening the base directory name give a correct report for that directory.
So sort of solved - its a reporting issue rather than a copying issue.
(oh - my 18,000th post! :) )
