My SanDisk USB flash drive shows that 43GB is used when I just copied a 10GB file after formatting

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1












I recently bought a SanDisk 128GB USB flash drive.



And after formatting the USB flash drive in exFAT format, I copied a folder whose capacity is around 10GB. There are lots of small files in it, so it took some time.



However, when I see in the Windows Explorer after copying the folder, it says that around 43GB of the storage is occupied and now only 70GB of the storage is free to use.



What is happening and how should I deal with it? Is my USB flash drive physically broken?



It is still weird because when I copied a single file with 7 GB capacity, it showed the remaining capacity correctly at around 110 GB available..






usb







share|improve this question



















  • 3




    If you right click on a small file and go to properties what does it display for "size" and "size on disk"
    – Scott Chamberlain
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Please explain wasted space on an exFAT formatted external hard drive
    – phuclv
    1 hour ago










  • Why is "size on disk" much bigger than "size" when I copy data from NTFS to exFAT?
    – phuclv
    58 mins ago










  • You said a 10GB file in the title but actually copied a 10GB folder of small files. They're completely different. If your cluster size is 4KB and your files are 1KB on average then obviously it'll take 40GB on disk. By default the allocation size of exFAT is much higher than other file systems
    – phuclv
    42 mins ago














up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1












I recently bought a SanDisk 128GB USB flash drive.



And after formatting the USB flash drive in exFAT format, I copied a folder whose capacity is around 10GB. There are lots of small files in it, so it took some time.



However, when I see in the Windows Explorer after copying the folder, it says that around 43GB of the storage is occupied and now only 70GB of the storage is free to use.



What is happening and how should I deal with it? Is my USB flash drive physically broken?



It is still weird because when I copied a single file with 7 GB capacity, it showed the remaining capacity correctly at around 110 GB available..






usb







share|improve this question



















  • 3




    If you right click on a small file and go to properties what does it display for "size" and "size on disk"
    – Scott Chamberlain
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Please explain wasted space on an exFAT formatted external hard drive
    – phuclv
    1 hour ago










  • Why is "size on disk" much bigger than "size" when I copy data from NTFS to exFAT?
    – phuclv
    58 mins ago










  • You said a 10GB file in the title but actually copied a 10GB folder of small files. They're completely different. If your cluster size is 4KB and your files are 1KB on average then obviously it'll take 40GB on disk. By default the allocation size of exFAT is much higher than other file systems
    – phuclv
    42 mins ago












up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1






1





I recently bought a SanDisk 128GB USB flash drive.



And after formatting the USB flash drive in exFAT format, I copied a folder whose capacity is around 10GB. There are lots of small files in it, so it took some time.



However, when I see in the Windows Explorer after copying the folder, it says that around 43GB of the storage is occupied and now only 70GB of the storage is free to use.



What is happening and how should I deal with it? Is my USB flash drive physically broken?



It is still weird because when I copied a single file with 7 GB capacity, it showed the remaining capacity correctly at around 110 GB available..






usb







share|improve this question















I recently bought a SanDisk 128GB USB flash drive.



And after formatting the USB flash drive in exFAT format, I copied a folder whose capacity is around 10GB. There are lots of small files in it, so it took some time.



However, when I see in the Windows Explorer after copying the folder, it says that around 43GB of the storage is occupied and now only 70GB of the storage is free to use.



What is happening and how should I deal with it? Is my USB flash drive physically broken?



It is still weird because when I copied a single file with 7 GB capacity, it showed the remaining capacity correctly at around 110 GB available..






usb




usb






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 mins ago









JakeGould

30.4k1093134




30.4k1093134










asked 6 hours ago









Felix Lee

316




316







  • 3




    If you right click on a small file and go to properties what does it display for "size" and "size on disk"
    – Scott Chamberlain
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Please explain wasted space on an exFAT formatted external hard drive
    – phuclv
    1 hour ago










  • Why is "size on disk" much bigger than "size" when I copy data from NTFS to exFAT?
    – phuclv
    58 mins ago










  • You said a 10GB file in the title but actually copied a 10GB folder of small files. They're completely different. If your cluster size is 4KB and your files are 1KB on average then obviously it'll take 40GB on disk. By default the allocation size of exFAT is much higher than other file systems
    – phuclv
    42 mins ago












  • 3




    If you right click on a small file and go to properties what does it display for "size" and "size on disk"
    – Scott Chamberlain
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Please explain wasted space on an exFAT formatted external hard drive
    – phuclv
    1 hour ago










  • Why is "size on disk" much bigger than "size" when I copy data from NTFS to exFAT?
    – phuclv
    58 mins ago










  • You said a 10GB file in the title but actually copied a 10GB folder of small files. They're completely different. If your cluster size is 4KB and your files are 1KB on average then obviously it'll take 40GB on disk. By default the allocation size of exFAT is much higher than other file systems
    – phuclv
    42 mins ago







3




3




If you right click on a small file and go to properties what does it display for "size" and "size on disk"
– Scott Chamberlain
6 hours ago




If you right click on a small file and go to properties what does it display for "size" and "size on disk"
– Scott Chamberlain
6 hours ago




1




1




Possible duplicate of Please explain wasted space on an exFAT formatted external hard drive
– phuclv
1 hour ago




Possible duplicate of Please explain wasted space on an exFAT formatted external hard drive
– phuclv
1 hour ago












Why is "size on disk" much bigger than "size" when I copy data from NTFS to exFAT?
– phuclv
58 mins ago




Why is "size on disk" much bigger than "size" when I copy data from NTFS to exFAT?
– phuclv
58 mins ago












You said a 10GB file in the title but actually copied a 10GB folder of small files. They're completely different. If your cluster size is 4KB and your files are 1KB on average then obviously it'll take 40GB on disk. By default the allocation size of exFAT is much higher than other file systems
– phuclv
42 mins ago




You said a 10GB file in the title but actually copied a 10GB folder of small files. They're completely different. If your cluster size is 4KB and your files are 1KB on average then obviously it'll take 40GB on disk. By default the allocation size of exFAT is much higher than other file systems
– phuclv
42 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
10
down vote













You already answered your own question: There are lots of small files in it



Every file on an exFAT volume takes at least one blocksize. So a file of a single byte in size takes 4K - a size amplification of 1:4096. You are seing a size amplification of 4.3, which is very plausible with lots of small files.



You can check this hypothesis by packing the files with WinRAR and the zero compression settings, then copy this file to the USB stick.






share|improve this answer




















  • I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
    – Felix Lee
    1 hour ago











  • It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
    – Sam Varshavchik
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
    – zwol
    48 mins ago










  • Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
    – phuclv
    46 mins ago


















up vote
0
down vote













As the other answer suggested, use an archiver, but I'll recommend using 7z instead of WinRAR because it's free, and also you can avoid installing any third-party archivers if you use Windows' built-in "Send to > Compressed (zipped) folder" option when you right-click files and folder. It's faster than 7z but it archives slightly slower.



In case you need to store mostly JPEG images or something else that doesn't compress at all, you should benefit from using 7z and picking the "no compression" option explicitly.



Using .zip archive format over .rar or .7z is important because Windows supports browsing them as if it was just any other folder (albeit with some limitations).



If you are okay with not being able to browse files like that on the flash drive, you can use another format, but the important part about the files not taking so much space is having a single archive file instead of all the original files separately.






share|improve this answer




















    Your Answer







    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "3"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1370780%2fmy-sandisk-usb-flash-drive-shows-that-43gb-is-used-when-i-just-copied-a-10gb-fil%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest

















    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    10
    down vote













    You already answered your own question: There are lots of small files in it



    Every file on an exFAT volume takes at least one blocksize. So a file of a single byte in size takes 4K - a size amplification of 1:4096. You are seing a size amplification of 4.3, which is very plausible with lots of small files.



    You can check this hypothesis by packing the files with WinRAR and the zero compression settings, then copy this file to the USB stick.






    share|improve this answer




















    • I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
      – Felix Lee
      1 hour ago











    • It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
      – Sam Varshavchik
      1 hour ago







    • 1




      NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
      – zwol
      48 mins ago










    • Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
      – phuclv
      46 mins ago















    up vote
    10
    down vote













    You already answered your own question: There are lots of small files in it



    Every file on an exFAT volume takes at least one blocksize. So a file of a single byte in size takes 4K - a size amplification of 1:4096. You are seing a size amplification of 4.3, which is very plausible with lots of small files.



    You can check this hypothesis by packing the files with WinRAR and the zero compression settings, then copy this file to the USB stick.






    share|improve this answer




















    • I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
      – Felix Lee
      1 hour ago











    • It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
      – Sam Varshavchik
      1 hour ago







    • 1




      NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
      – zwol
      48 mins ago










    • Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
      – phuclv
      46 mins ago













    up vote
    10
    down vote










    up vote
    10
    down vote









    You already answered your own question: There are lots of small files in it



    Every file on an exFAT volume takes at least one blocksize. So a file of a single byte in size takes 4K - a size amplification of 1:4096. You are seing a size amplification of 4.3, which is very plausible with lots of small files.



    You can check this hypothesis by packing the files with WinRAR and the zero compression settings, then copy this file to the USB stick.






    share|improve this answer












    You already answered your own question: There are lots of small files in it



    Every file on an exFAT volume takes at least one blocksize. So a file of a single byte in size takes 4K - a size amplification of 1:4096. You are seing a size amplification of 4.3, which is very plausible with lots of small files.



    You can check this hypothesis by packing the files with WinRAR and the zero compression settings, then copy this file to the USB stick.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 6 hours ago









    Eugen Rieck

    8,85121925




    8,85121925











    • I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
      – Felix Lee
      1 hour ago











    • It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
      – Sam Varshavchik
      1 hour ago







    • 1




      NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
      – zwol
      48 mins ago










    • Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
      – phuclv
      46 mins ago

















    • I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
      – Felix Lee
      1 hour ago











    • It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
      – Sam Varshavchik
      1 hour ago







    • 1




      NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
      – zwol
      48 mins ago










    • Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
      – phuclv
      46 mins ago
















    I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
    – Felix Lee
    1 hour ago





    I actually don't understand what you mean. Then, do you mean it is a normal occasion? If I format the drive to NTFS, then will the folder be copied in an appropriate capacity? (I actually have no idea how exFAT works)
    – Felix Lee
    1 hour ago













    It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
    – Sam Varshavchik
    1 hour ago





    It means exactly what it means. Disk space is allocated in increments of 4kb, approx. A one byte file takes up 4kb of disk space. A two byte file takes up the same 4kb of disk space. Ditto for 3 bytes, and up to 4096 bytes. A 4097 byte file takes up 8192 bytes of disk space, and so on (this is ignoring the overhead of creating directory entries). The average size of your files seems to be about 1kb, so you end up using up four times as much as the sum total of your data. All filesystems work this way, FAT or NTFS, differing only in blk sizes, but some optimizations are possible, occasionally.
    – Sam Varshavchik
    1 hour ago





    1




    1




    NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
    – zwol
    48 mins ago




    NTFS is substantially more efficient than any version of FAT at handling lots of small files. If you're only ever going to use this USB drive with full-size computers running Windows, formatting it as NTFS is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you planned to plug it into a camera, on the other hand, or an Apple product, they wouldn't be able to read it.
    – zwol
    48 mins ago












    Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
    – phuclv
    46 mins ago





    Pretty much any file systems work like that: dividing the drive into blocks instead of bytes @zwol NTFS can store files directly inside the MFT entry, but since the entry is only 1KB long, only files that are a few hundred bytes long can be made resident
    – phuclv
    46 mins ago













    up vote
    0
    down vote













    As the other answer suggested, use an archiver, but I'll recommend using 7z instead of WinRAR because it's free, and also you can avoid installing any third-party archivers if you use Windows' built-in "Send to > Compressed (zipped) folder" option when you right-click files and folder. It's faster than 7z but it archives slightly slower.



    In case you need to store mostly JPEG images or something else that doesn't compress at all, you should benefit from using 7z and picking the "no compression" option explicitly.



    Using .zip archive format over .rar or .7z is important because Windows supports browsing them as if it was just any other folder (albeit with some limitations).



    If you are okay with not being able to browse files like that on the flash drive, you can use another format, but the important part about the files not taking so much space is having a single archive file instead of all the original files separately.






    share|improve this answer
























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      As the other answer suggested, use an archiver, but I'll recommend using 7z instead of WinRAR because it's free, and also you can avoid installing any third-party archivers if you use Windows' built-in "Send to > Compressed (zipped) folder" option when you right-click files and folder. It's faster than 7z but it archives slightly slower.



      In case you need to store mostly JPEG images or something else that doesn't compress at all, you should benefit from using 7z and picking the "no compression" option explicitly.



      Using .zip archive format over .rar or .7z is important because Windows supports browsing them as if it was just any other folder (albeit with some limitations).



      If you are okay with not being able to browse files like that on the flash drive, you can use another format, but the important part about the files not taking so much space is having a single archive file instead of all the original files separately.






      share|improve this answer






















        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        As the other answer suggested, use an archiver, but I'll recommend using 7z instead of WinRAR because it's free, and also you can avoid installing any third-party archivers if you use Windows' built-in "Send to > Compressed (zipped) folder" option when you right-click files and folder. It's faster than 7z but it archives slightly slower.



        In case you need to store mostly JPEG images or something else that doesn't compress at all, you should benefit from using 7z and picking the "no compression" option explicitly.



        Using .zip archive format over .rar or .7z is important because Windows supports browsing them as if it was just any other folder (albeit with some limitations).



        If you are okay with not being able to browse files like that on the flash drive, you can use another format, but the important part about the files not taking so much space is having a single archive file instead of all the original files separately.






        share|improve this answer












        As the other answer suggested, use an archiver, but I'll recommend using 7z instead of WinRAR because it's free, and also you can avoid installing any third-party archivers if you use Windows' built-in "Send to > Compressed (zipped) folder" option when you right-click files and folder. It's faster than 7z but it archives slightly slower.



        In case you need to store mostly JPEG images or something else that doesn't compress at all, you should benefit from using 7z and picking the "no compression" option explicitly.



        Using .zip archive format over .rar or .7z is important because Windows supports browsing them as if it was just any other folder (albeit with some limitations).



        If you are okay with not being able to browse files like that on the flash drive, you can use another format, but the important part about the files not taking so much space is having a single archive file instead of all the original files separately.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 20 mins ago









        Wildcard licensee

        11




        11



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1370780%2fmy-sandisk-usb-flash-drive-shows-that-43gb-is-used-when-i-just-copied-a-10gb-fil%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest
































































            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Image
            Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 1 down vote favorite I'm using WordPress 4.9.8, CiviCRM to 5.5.1, I usually send email to contact by Search> Find contacts View contact details Action> Send email Send email ok, Contact received mail ok like picture But status only Email sent though contact read email or not. So, can CiviCRM can change status to Email read when contact read email? wordpress email share | improve this question asked Sep 26 at 0:12 ToanLuong 49 9 add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite I'm using WordPress 4.9.8, CiviCRM to 5.5.1, I usually send email to contact by Search> Find contacts View contact details Action> Send email Send email ok, Contact received mail ok like picture But status only Email sent though contact read email or not. So, can CiviCRM can change status to Email read when contact read email? wordpress email share | improve this questi...
            Read more

            Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

            Image
            Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP 1 How can I extract a single band from multi-band raster in QGIS? I have an remote sensed image which has 6 bands (including NDVI band), I want to display each band separately, but have no idea how to do. I have seen some questions similar here but none worked for me. The original image (has 6 bands) is: I want to display the band 6 which should be like this: But I tried gdal_translate, and couldn't get the correct result. What I have got is: qgis raster multi-band share | improve this question edited Mar 5 at 0:53 Summer asked Mar 4 at 6:42 Summer Summer 23 6 Is this any help gis.stackexchange.com/questions/220658/… ? if not gis.stackexchange.com/questions/62133/… might help. – Michael Stimson Mar 4 at 6:46 Thanks for answering but when I used gdal_translate, qgis showed that 'Error 4: Kayena.tif: No such file or directory". Would you know how to fi...
            Read more

            How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?

            Image
            Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite I am currently learning reverse engineering and am studying the flags register. I had in my mind that rflags was just another name for one of the 16 general purpose registers, for example rax or rbx . But it looks like rflags is actually an additional register. So that makes 17 registers in total... how many more could there be? I have spent at least an hour on this and found numerous different answers. The best answer so far is this, which says that there are 40 registers in total. 16 General Purpose Registers 2 Status Registers 6 Code Segment Registers 16 SSE Registers 8 FPU/MMX Registers But if I add that up, I get 48. Could anybody provide an official answer on how many registers an x86_64 CPU has (e.g. an Intel i7). Additionally, I have seen references to 'hardware' and 'architectural' registers. What are those registers and how many are there? register x86-64 share | improve this...
            Read more