@Benjay - Thanks for the suggestion. I'd already downloaded the original version, but I'm a bit leery using apps when they first come out. I'll check out the latest version. I guess instead of leaving my new 1TB MBE drive entirely as NTFS, I'll make a small WBFS partition to be able to keep testing these apps as they develop, because I'm sure this won't be the last time I have to go through this.
@Pakatus - I did give WBFS Manager a quick go, but as I said, I'm looking for on-the-fly copying as the other method just seems like a big waste of time, creating a temp. 4.3GB file on my drive to copy over every single game, regardless of its size?! No thanks. Why hasn't he implemented on-the-fly copying?
@ Everyone - I'm still wondering why the games are increasing in size. I'll have to see what I can find out about this WBFS. Is there a place where the creator discussed it in detail?
Oh, I don't know what happened, but last night after playing a little TFC (I'm old-skool like that
) I went back and tried a few things with formatting and whatnot, and then went to put Muramasa back on and now the tools were all showing the ISO as being 0.66GB instead of the 0.63GB all of them were showing previously? Strange. I've only briefly followed all of this and I know I recall seeing mention of some/all tools not reporting the correct size, but you'd think they would at least be consistent in that regards.
Anyways, last night before going to bed I started up wbfsGUI v14.2 and let it do its thing and when I got up it was done. Now to hand the drive off to the kids to give a good test to a sampling of the games, before I go and reformat/repartition my drive.
If I find out any useful information regarding any of the questions I've had, I'll be sure to add it here.
Thanks for the replies Benjay & Pakatus.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, in wbfsGUI my drive shows 408.54/450.00GB used, and after copying all the games onto her drive, her's shows 415.27/900.00GB used. So, that's a 6.73GB increase in size. All of the games appear to have gone up in size by either 24 or 32 MB?
I ran just the command line tool wbfs_win.exe on the drives to check the integrity and get their 'info'. First thing I noticed is that the integrity check goes much faster on the newly copied to drive. I don't know if any of you have ever had to watch a bag of popcorn popping in the microwave, standing there counting between each kernel pop, but if this were the same, the bag would have fully popped.
Whereas with my current drive I'm not sure I would have made it past five kernels.
Guess we can attribute that to fragmentation? Or...
From the 'info' command...I get these figures.
MY DRIVE/NEW DRIVE
Blocks 5307/31023
Total 450.00/900.00
Used 408.54/415.27
Free 41.46/484.73
I assumed those blocks represent FREE blocks, which was confirmed by WBFS Manager which is the only tool I've seen so far that even mentions blocks (would be nice if it showed game size in blocks as well as MB). So, if you do the math, this means that for my 450GB partition, each GB is equal to 128 blocks (or 8MB per block), whereas for the new 900GB partition each GB is equal to only 64 blocks (or 16MB per block), which if equivalent to Windows allocation units (and I can't see why it wouldn't be), would mean a less efficient storage scenario for the latter, but with the advantage of increased speed. Unless I'm just totally mistaken about all of this, which is quite possible.
If I'm not mistaken, who/what determines the block (or allocation unit) size in WBFS? Seems kind of strange that it would vary and based upon what? The size of the drive has nothing to do with the content being put on said drive, at least not in this case. Well, I'm off to do some more research to see if I can find any answers to these questions. In the meantime, if anyone has any insight into these matters, please share.
One last thing. Is it possible to pipe the output of the command line tool wbfs_win.exe? I've tried > info.txt with no success and that's about the limit of my knowledge.
EDIT: OK, well I did some poking around and let me just preface the following with the disclaimer that I know next to nothing about coding unless you need something in BASIC.
Anyways, I was looking in libwbfs.h and came across the following, which I'm wondering if it might explain the difference in WBFS 'sector' (block) sizes.
Code:
typedef struct wbfs_s
{
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂwbfs_head_t *head;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ/* hdsectors, the size of the sector provided by the hosting hard drive */
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu32 hd_sec_sz;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu8ÂÂhd_sec_sz_s; // the power of two of the last number
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu32 n_hd_sec;ÂÂÂÂ // the number of hd sector in the wbfs partition
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ/* standard wii sector (0x8000 bytes) */
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu32 wii_sec_sz;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu8ÂÂwii_sec_sz_s;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu32 n_wii_sec;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu32 n_wii_sec_per_disc;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ/* The size of a wbfs sector */
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu32 wbfs_sec_sz;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu32 wbfs_sec_sz_s;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu16 n_wbfs_sec;ÂÂ // this must fit in 16 bit!
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu16 n_wbfs_sec_per_disc;ÂÂ // size of the lookup table
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu32 part_lba;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ/* virtual methods to read write the partition */
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂrw_sector_callback_t read_hdsector;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂrw_sector_callback_t write_hdsector;
#ifdef WIN32
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂclose_callback_t close_hd;
#endif
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂvoid *callback_data;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu16 max_disc;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu32 freeblks_lba;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu32 *freeblks;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu16 disc_info_sz;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu8ÂÂ*tmp_buffer;ÂÂ// pre-allocated buffer for unaligned read
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu32 n_disc_open;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂ
}wbfs_t;
In particular, the line
u16 n_wbfs_sec; // this must fit in 16 bit!. If this refers to the total number of sectors then that would explain the need for larger sectors on the larger partition. The 450GB partition @ 128 blocks per GB comes out to 57,600 blocks, which as everyone should know, fits into 16 bits. However, doubling that number for a 900GB partition would give us 115,200 blocks, which does not. If that is indeed the explanation, then it looks like it would be impossible to get the more efficient storage of the 450GB partition, at least without modifying the code, if that is even possible. I guess the maximum partition size possible with the more efficient block size would be 65,535/128 or 511.9921875GB. I wonder if it uses an even more efficient size than the 128 blocks per GB if the partition size is small enough. All in all, no big deal but it's nice to understand why things are working as they are.
Apologies if this was all well known amongst the more informed. Guess some of us learn something new every day.