Windows 7 Free Space

[+BudMan MVC]

What???

Dude what are you not understanding?? Look here.. I just created a **** load of hardlinks.. Now my temp folder is showing that its using like 50% of my whole C drive -- but look at that, still have the same amount of free space left.

Do you want me to put in more hardlinks than I have hard disk space? ;)

How are you measuring used pace of windows?? Explorer?? Then you viewing the hardlinks size, just like what happens when I look at the size of temp in my test.

use the tool I linked to to see the size of your hardlinks under windows.

[DaViD_BRaNDoN]

How exactly are you viewing the size of the winsxs folder? Are you taking into account they are all hardlinks?

So no the winsxs folder is not going to eat your hard disk space, and no its not super-blocked..

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2008/11/19/disk-space.aspx

"In practice, nearly every file in the WinSxS directory is a ?hard link? to the physical files elsewhere on the system?meaning that the files are not actually in this directory. For instance in the WinSxS there might be a file called advapi32.dll that takes up >700K however what?s being reported is a hard link to the actual file that lives in the Windows\System32, and it will be counted twice (or more) when simply looking at the individual directories from Windows Explorer."

'While it?s true that WinSxS does consume some disk space by simply existing, and there are a number of metadata files, folders, manifests, and catalogs in it, it?s significantly smaller than reported. The actual amount of storage consumed varies, but on a typical system it is about 400MB. While that is not small, we think the robustness provided for servicing is a reasonable tradeoff."

Thanks for this. Didn't know that those are hard-linked.

[kjx]

But does it work on winsxs? I've measured the used space of windows dir it's 11.4GB, and that of winsxs is 5.66GB. If I select everything in the windows dir except for winsx, it's 5.72GB. So isn't it actually counting the used space by winsxs, thus affecting the free space of the HDD?

If you want to get anywhere near a reasonable measure of the actual size of your WinSxS (stands for Windows Side by Side btw), you need to show all hidden and OS files and then measure the size of everything except the winsxs folder. Then check out the used space on the drive from drive properties. Subtract the two values to get the actual space taken up by Winsxs + the volume file tables + the contents of System Volume Information (this is most accurate if System Restore is turned off on the drive).

In my case, it actually takes up something less than 1.8GB but Explorer reports it as 4.4GB. The reason for this discrepancy has already been explained by BudMan very well.

[+BudMan MVC]

Ok -- just for fun.. How is this possible?? ;) My temp dir (full of hardlinks) is now taking up more space than my whole C drive ;)

I would suggest users stop getting all hung up on what they "THINK" is taking up their hard disk space -- stay out of system files for looking for space on your disk. Oh my my winsxs dir is 20GB -- why is MS so stupid that they need to keep so many copies of files, etc.. :rolleyes:

Maybe they could remove some of the nonsense users come up with if they would actually report the hardlink sizes, or better yet prob just hide it from the users since they rarely understand what they are looking at any way. One of my fav examples of this is when users think their machine is so slow because this "idle" process is taking up 99% of their cpu :rofl:

BTW -- third party disk space tools are normally no better at it either

Seems my C drive has now grown?

Edited July 6, 2010 by BudMan

[MS Bob 11]

Measuring :\Windows shows 24 GB gross size and 16.7 GB total size. 7.3 GB are hard links. Unacceptable to me that an OS takes this much space because they screwed up the servicing mechanism. Thanks a ton btw for that ctts utility. It must be the only one of its kind for correctly calculating directory size (though it's not in English).

[+BudMan MVC]

Screwed up what??

Hard links are NOT actually taking up space.. So Im not understanding what you bitching about? Nor is the system reporting false free space size.

If you want to bitch that your explorer shows windows is using 24GB, when its NOT really -- then ok I can understand that.. But what are you saying is wrong with the servicing mech??

How exactly would you have them do it differently that would make you happy? Should explorer not count Hardlink space? Should it show it differently? What?

Deleting these hardlinks is not going to get you any space.. So you can delete the whole winsxs dir, your not going to free up 7.3 GB of space.. Since you are not actually using it -- hardlinks are pointers to the same file on the disk at a different location. deleting a hardlink to the file, still leaves the file taking up the space.

The extension I linked too will show you what file the hardlink actually points too..

I wish MS would be be more open with these sorts of details.. But to be honest look at their user base -- they already have help docs written at like a 3rd grade level, and users complain that its too complicated, etc. ;) They call up a document that has more than 3 words and they can't be bothered to read it!

Its pretty much impossible to make everyone happy ;) Sometimes your better off just locking them out of the details, and make it as much as a black box as possible.. Users are ok with magic ;) But show how the magic works -- and they get confused and just cause the techs more issues.

[MS Bob 11]

Screwed up the servicing stack...you know the mechanism through the OS installs hotfixes/updates and service packs. That is slow, bloated, take time every time you install an update at logoff and shutdown and is the root cause of the whole WinSxS mess. They changed the servicing method used by 2000/XP called Update Installer (Update.exe) to Component-Based Servicing. Because of interdependencies of components, every time an update is installed that affects one component, other components must be serviced as well. The whole design of the servicing stack is flawed in Vista/7 (slowness, bloatness and unreliability leading to endless loops at the "Please wait while Windows configures updates/Updates failed to install. Rolling back" screen. Read all the blog posts and comments here: http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/ and you will understand what I am complaining about. The disk space and login/shutdown performance hit it takes due to this new servicing mechanism is unacceptable to me and a huge step back from XP's Update.exe. It is this which ends up taking up install the space on your OS drive as you install more and more updates over time.

And I never said anything about deleting those hard links. That would be a foolish thing to do and may break who know anything in Windows. I only said the design of the OS is flawed in a way that it takes up more and more disk space over time as files get serviced and copies of files before they are serviced get added to WinSxS. The serviced files get hard linked or "projected" to C:\Windows\system32\ but their backups remains in WinSxS. It is also why Microsoft will tell you to install fewer updates (WTF) to keep the size of WinSxS in check.

What you are talking about and that E7 blog post is that the files being hard linked don't take up as much space as it seems they do and as Explorer incorrectly reports but that doesn't change the fact that the size of WinSxS increases to unacceptable levels with installation of updates and hotfixes.

Steven Sinofsky says the size of WinSxS is close to 400 MB eh? Now that you and I know about ctts.exe can you run it against a clean fresh install of Windows 7 with the -la and/or -a switches so hard links are not counted more than once and measure the size of C:\Windows and C:\Windows\WinSxS and let everyone know if its really 400 MB or even close to it? And then what about the size it grows to when we install security updates and hotfixes?

[+BudMan MVC]

Easy enough to test with a quick install of 7 virtually, run the ctts tool, and then run all the updates, etc. then run it again..

When I get a chance I will do it to see.. I've got a clean 7 install currently in my virtual machines base - but all the updates have already been applied.. I then clone that machine when doing testing, etc. But its only take a few minutes to install it fresh, etc.

You may have never stated to delete anything in winsxs folder - but others have in the thread.. And I agree with you - that would be just asking for issues.

I personally think the problem is to do a major overhaul of how updates are done - having to keep older versions around, etc. Would more than likely break all the old software, its hard to redo the OS while maintaining ability to run software written for 10+ year old OS, etc.

Im curious how you would change the system? Without a major revamp and starting from scratch - and then throwing out all the old software/drivers and starting from a clean base.

You know linux does somewhat sim thing - when you update libraries, etc. The system maintains a link with the old name to the newer library.. This does not always work if the new library removes functions, etc. But in general I think a link to the files in question are a much cleaner way then keeping full copies, etc.

[+BudMan MVC]

Ok did a quick test.. now this is a CLEAN win7 install, all updates installed -- if you subtract the hardlinks from the ctts tool, and the winsxs dir you a bit over 1GB..

Now here is my brand spanking new install, just finished a few minutes ago - not one update installed.. And its showing a bit less then 1GB difference in what winsxs shows and hardlinks.

Now the question comes in -- where did that 400MB come from mentioned in the article? Is that from a pre RTM version, non ultimate version? Is the ctts tool 100% correct? etc.. Not sure.. But does not seem to be a huge difference in sizes reported from all the updates installed, and none of them, etc.

You would have to dig deeper, really would need to know exactly how that ctts tool is coming up with its numbers, I think you can get the source of the tool to take a look? You would have to write your own tool.. Or take a really deep look at every file stored in the winsxs folder and where it links too, etc.

But like I said in the beginning -- your talking about a few GB one way or the other.. With a GB costing like .065 -- why should anyone really freaking care? ;) I sure don't care if my OS dir is 10GB or 20GB -- your talking cents.. It does what I want it to do is what it comes down too - I am not going to start ripping things out of the OS dir trying to save a GB here or there ;)

To install windows 7 its recommended you have atleast 20GB (x64) right... I would say you should be atleast double that and you should not have any problems -- as long as you don't go installing your vid library on your OS partition -- you should be fine for a few games, your office suite, etc. And a restore point or 2.

[MS Bob 11]

That has already been discussed. With SSDs into the picture, HDDs don't matter to performance oriented users like me. And on a 160 GB HDD, WinSxS size matters. It also matters for the future of Windows and why Windows 7 isn't ideal for devices like the iPad. Why Mary Jo Foley says to expect Windows 8 to be better engineered to fit on smaller internet-connected devices. Btw, are you running ctts.exe elevated i.e. with admin rights cmd prompt? And maybe that 400 MB is an estimation Microsoft made of the size. I don't expect them to have internal tools measuring directory size minus NTFS special features. Also, I don't doubt the accuracy of this tool since it specifically designed for this very purpose and claims to calculate the correct size minus all of the NTFS special features - junction points, sparse files, compressed files, not just hard links.

[+BudMan MVC]

Maybe your just phrasing it wrong for me?? But its not the winsxs folder size that is a issue, since that is mostly hardlinks..

If your complaining about the overall bloat of your OS is not fitting on a 16GB SSD, then pick another OS ;) The OS footprint of others are way smaller!! Or buy a bigger SSD -- you can get up to 1TB SSD now can you not ;) So what are you complaining about that your OS takes 20GB -- just get a bigger disk ;)

No matter how you look at it, looking to remove system files is not going to give you the most bang for the buck as far size..

Here is my CLEAN fully updated win7 ultimate system -- is using a total of 7.2 GB of hard disk space

Which includes a GB page file, so really only 6.2 GB of my 20GB hard disk.. How much do you really think your going to be able to trim out of that?? A couple GB?? What are you going to break? What features are you going to remove? Like I said if you don't like the foot print of the OS -- then use another!

The users installs after the OS are where the meat of the space is going -- not the OS..

People want their cake and want to eat it as well ;) They want an OS that does this, does that, has pretty icons with transparent edges, menus that are transparent.. Backgrounds that move, whizzing this and whirling that -- run programs from 4 generations of OS ago, and do it all in 23 MBytes.. :rolleyes:

If you don't like the size of your OSes footprint -- then use a different one, or get a bigger disk ;)

edit: Could it be done better?? Sure there is always rooms for improvement in any system, does not matter what it is.. You can make it more powerful, more efficient with space, etc. etc. Im not saying windows does not have some fat it could trim -- but I just don't get the issue with a couple of gigs of space.. With the size of disks these days its just not worth dicking with, when you can just get a bigger drive vs scrapping up a couple of extra gig.. Does not matter if its HDD or SSD.. They make larger ones you know ;)

If you looking to save space -- re-encode your videos, there is much more bang for the buck space saving then deleting system files.

Edited July 6, 2010 by BudMan

[neudera]

Delete all the porn off your computer, that should free up a few terabytes.

[pers3us]

wow! what a debate :D

[COKid]

Delete all the porn off your computer, that should free up a few terabytes.

:laugh:

[Auditor]

Use this small disk utility tool.

http://www.snapfiles.com/get/treesize.html

then scan your c drive and it will tell you which file and folder is using how much space then you can safely delete unnecessary files. I heard somewhere it is suicidal for windows to delete winsx files or folder. your computer will be pretty unstable if you delete files from there.

Or another option is if you have different partition then stop the torrent. move your saved torrent folder to different partition then redownload torrent and locate files to your new saved location. It will check file whatever is already downloaded and will start from wherever you were left.

[Mr. Gibs]

Screwed up the servicing stack...you know the mechanism through the OS installs hotfixes/updates and service packs. That is slow, bloated, take time every time you install an update at logoff and shutdown and is the root cause of the whole WinSxS mess. They changed the servicing method used by 2000/XP called Update Installer (Update.exe) to Component-Based Servicing. Because of interdependencies of components, every time an update is installed that affects one component, other components must be serviced as well. The whole design of the servicing stack is flawed in Vista/7 (slowness, bloatness and unreliability leading to endless loops at the "Please wait while Windows configures updates/Updates failed to install. Rolling back" screen. Read all the blog posts and comments here: http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/ and you will understand what I am complaining about. The disk space and login/shutdown performance hit it takes due to this new servicing mechanism is unacceptable to me and a huge step back from XP's Update.exe. It is this which ends up taking up install the space on your OS drive as you install more and more updates over time.

And I never said anything about deleting those hard links. That would be a foolish thing to do and may break who know anything in Windows. I only said the design of the OS is flawed in a way that it takes up more and more disk space over time as files get serviced and copies of files before they are serviced get added to WinSxS. The serviced files get hard linked or "projected" to C:\Windows\system32\ but their backups remains in WinSxS. It is also why Microsoft will tell you to install fewer updates (WTF) to keep the size of WinSxS in check.

What you are talking about and that E7 blog post is that the files being hard linked don't take up as much space as it seems they do and as Explorer incorrectly reports but that doesn't change the fact that the size of WinSxS increases to unacceptable levels with installation of updates and hotfixes.

Steven Sinofsky says the size of WinSxS is close to 400 MB eh? Now that you and I know about ctts.exe can you run it against a clean fresh install of Windows 7 with the -la and/or -a switches so hard links are not counted more than once and measure the size of C:\Windows and C:\Windows\WinSxS and let everyone know if its really 400 MB or even close to it? And then what about the size it grows to when we install security updates and hotfixes?

It's called backwards compatibility. A service update may change the contents of a .dll file thats required by a program. Now when the program needs to use that .dll file, it cannot and so will probably crash.

As for unacceptable levels? I'm running a Windows 7 ultimate with every update installed and windows explorer report the size of my SxS folder (with hardlinks) to be exactly 4.59gb. Not exactly unacceptable if you ask me.

[iZoom]

I'm enjoying/learning from this debate...do continue

[LiquidSolstice]

Actually, this debate was incredibly enlightening. I didn't have a clue what hardlinks and symlinks were till I read it.

Good stuff.

[Anibal P]

wow! what a debate :D

Any thread where BudMan pops in will be entertaining, informative and educational

I've probably learned more reading his comments than I did in computer school

[+BudMan MVC]

^ Thanks for that Z0phi3l -- always nice to hear not everyone thinks I'm a brash, rude ******* ;)

[sw1tch..]

I starting reading this thread as it was referenced in another. BudMan I must say thank you as z0phi3l mentioned this has been very informative and educational.

My hat is off to you good sir :pint:.

[mpg187]

Use this small disk utility tool.

http://www.snapfiles.com/get/treesize.html

then scan your c drive and it will tell you which file and folder is using how much space then you can safely delete unnecessary files. I heard somewhere it is suicidal for windows to delete winsx files or folder. your computer will be pretty unstable if you delete files from there.

Or another option is if you have different partition then stop the torrent. move your saved torrent folder to different partition then redownload torrent and locate files to your new saved location. It will check file whatever is already downloaded and will start from wherever you were left.

The whole point I wanted free space was to save me the time from moving to a different partition and I was sooo close to having enough space. Since then the torrent is done and I moved the files to my USB Hard drive. I will keep that link to the tool you posted for future use if I need it...

I don't like in DiskMax how it refuses to run if there is an update. One time I was outta town and needed to free up some space :(

I didn't even have enough space for the update of diskmax because I couldn't run diskmax to make any!!!

[cacoe]

Tried running ccleaner? If not, download and clean your pc out.

I prefer windirstat over treesize, you get a much more visual idea of what files are using what space.