disk is low on free disk space

Discussion in 'Windows Small Business Server' started by ZielonySBS, Jun 30, 2008.

  1. ZielonySBS

    ZielonySBS Guest

    I receive wired alerts from system monitoring.

    When I look directly via My Computer all looks fine.

    I added a new external hadr drive for garbage data I: and Z:

    Free disk space (C:) 3,737 MB | 3,782 MB | -1 %
    Free disk space (D:) 19,283 MB | 19,480 MB | -1 %
    Free disk space (E:) 4,005 MB | 4,005 MB | 0 %
    Free disk space (F:) 22,182 MB | 9,172 MB | 142 %
    Free disk space (I:) 37,877 MB No data
    Free disk space (Z:) 310,241 MB No data
     
    ZielonySBS, Jun 30, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. If the alert is similar to the one below, it may be that you disconnected a
    USB external drive without first turning off the drive or without using the
    "Safely Remove" utility in Windows. In general, this alert can be ignored.

    --------------------------------------------------
    Alert on SERVER1 at 6/30/2008 9:28:52 AM

    The following disk is low on free disk space. Low levels of free disk space
    can cause performance problems and prevent users from saving files on the
    disk.

    Drive Letter: HarddiskVolume12
    Free Disk Space: 0.000000. MB
    % Free Disk Space: 0.000000.%

    You can disable this alert or change its threshold by using the Change Alert
    Notifications task in the Server Management Monitoring and Reporting
    taskpad.
     
    Merv Porter [SBS-MVP], Jun 30, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. ZielonySBS

    SuperGumby Guest

    if you think those alerts are wired (I think you mean weird), you should
    consider my opinion of your post...

    SO!!! Your C: partition has 3.7GB free. _HOW BIG IS IT_??? It is
    _impossible_ to know the percentage free without knowing both the total and
    free amount.

    Is that table
    useless label, drive designation, used, total, percent (if so, the alert is
    correct).
    or is it some other list of values?

    IF the box actually has -1% free space on some drives, 0% on others, and a
    couple of unused partitions, well, geee, I guess I'd use the unused
    partitions.

    DO YOU REALISE the contradiction you point out? ARE YOU CONFUSED?
    ----quote----
    ----endquote---

    SO? They have 'no data' but are also 'in half in data' (which I hope means
    they are -half full-, 50% used).

    It doesn't matter how much free space you have. At 40% free space NTFS works
    well. At 30% free space the performance of NTFS is impacted. At 20% free
    space NTFS performance is impacted dramatically. At 10% free space NTFS is
    pretty well crippled.

    and if those -1% figures indicate that you are using drive compression that
    will also be sucking the life out of the system.
     
    SuperGumby, Jun 30, 2008
    #3
  4. ZielonySBS

    Gregg Hill Guest

    SuperGumby,

    I have heard those figures thrown around for years, starting when drives
    were quite small by today's standards (only a few hundred megabytes). Do
    they still hold true? If one has a terabyte drive with 10% left, there is
    still 100GB of free disk space. Are you saying that even with 100GB left,
    NTFS is crippled, just because it happens to be 10% of the total? A 1TB
    drive with 20% left would be "impacted dramatically" because there is only
    200GB of space left? Holy crap!

    On a 9GB drive from NT4 days, 10% would only be 900MB, and I can see where
    things **might** get dicey. But having a full 100GB left and causing a
    problem? Yikes!

    I never knew NTFS was so dependent upon having a massive amount of disk
    space left, if indeed the above is true.

    Please clarify why the **percentage** means so much rather than actual
    remaining space on today's massive drives.

    Thank you!

    Gregg Hill
     
    Gregg Hill, Jun 30, 2008
    #4
  5. OHH GAWD, maybe we should move the discussion to ms.pub.whatever.filesystems
    :)

    TTBOMK it is _all_ about percentages. The explanation relying on the
    underlying structure of the file system, a basis that will not change
    despite the increasing size but did significantly change with NTFS versions
    (was it 4 vs 5?, unsure). The basis remaining true due to 'backward
    compatability' and the growth in indexing as absolute size increases.

    Yes, we have the _ability_ to run huge filesystems, doesn't actually mean we
    should.

    The large absolute value, though it may represent a smaller percentage,
    helps NTFS maintain it's reduced impact from fragmentation, but then that's
    also a discussion for .filesystems :)

    It has been a while since I've investigated any 'empirical tests' but there
    has been no substantial change to the filesystem in this time either.
    Physical attributes (size, speed [particular seek times]) may change but the
    filesystem needs to do its housekeeping, and it is easier to find a 'spare
    part of the disk' to write your modified data to if a _reasonable_ part of
    your index points to unused space.
     
    SuperGumby [SBS MVP], Jun 30, 2008
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.