File size difference? Windows file system issue?

[Vectraat]

So I transferred a folder with files in it and subfolders with more files in them from one hard drive to another.

When I right click > properties on the original folder, I see: 212 GB size.

When I right click > properties on the transferred folder, I see: 404 GB.

 

So then I go into both hard drives and start checking the properties of each and every folder with files in them and I see a size disparity. It's only when I go into the root folder CTRL + A + Properties that I can see that they're the exact same file size.

So why is the initial hard drive reporting that these files are 192 GB less than they should be when checking properties on the main folder? And how do I get the initial hard drive to show the real size from the main folder?

[Tabs]

There are 14 more files in the left folder compared to those in the right folder.

 

This can happen when you copy a folder but are not showing hidden files, or system files (two separate selections in folder options).

[Vectraat]

7 minutes ago, Tabs said:

There are 14 more files in the left folder compared to those in the right folder.

 

This can happen when you copy a folder but are not showing hidden files, or system files (two separate selections in folder options).

The folder with more files in it is actually a transfer from the folder with lesser files in it. How that even makes sense, I don't know. But as I said, when I go to the root folder, all the files are there in the folder with lesser files as shown in the image. 

 

Either way, I went folder > show hidden files and folders > view > Show hidden files, folders, and drives.

And it's still only 41.9 to 50.9 when I re-did the transfer. 

 

As for the system files, I don't see where that's located under folder options. Is it under view, general or search? Under "search" there's already a check beside "include system directories" 

 

 

[Tabs]

6 minutes ago, Vectraat said:

The folder with more files in it is actually a transfer from the folder with lesser files in it. How that even makes sense, I don't know. But as I said, when I go to the root folder, all the files are there in the folder with lesser files as shown in the image. 

 

Either way, I went folder > show hidden files and folders > view > Show hidden files, folders, and drives.

And it's still only 41.9 to 50.9 when I re-did the transfer. 

 

As for the system files, I don't see where that's located under folder options. Is it under view, general or search? Under "search" there's already a check beside "include system directories" 

 

 

 

I attached an image and highlighted the two options I referenced.

 

The first is the selection to either show or not show hidden files, folders and directories. the second is a checkbox to enable showing of system files. *Untick* it to enable viewing them.

 

[Vectraat]

Yeah, doesn't matter, still the same result. Only when I click into the folder --> CTRL + A + Right Click --> Properties do I see the correct size of 50.9 / 115 files / 31 folders vs 41.9

[Tabs]

29 minutes ago, Vectraat said:

Yeah, doesn't matter, still the same result. Only when I click into the folder --> CTRL + A + Right Click --> Properties do I see the correct size of 50.9 / 115 files / 31 folders vs 41.9

That's very interesting... I'm not sure why that is then. I've heard of this issue regularly but I haven't been able to reproduce it myself.

 

If you find the cause, let me know.

 

You can use tools like WinDirStat and JDiskReport (JRE required) to perhaps give you a better representation of data usage compared to Explorer.

[Vectraat]

16 hours ago, Tabs said:

That's very interesting... I'm not sure why that is then. I've heard of this issue regularly but I haven't been able to reproduce it myself.

 

If you find the cause, let me know.

 

You can use tools like WinDirStat and JDiskReport (JRE required) to perhaps give you a better representation of data usage compared to Explorer.

Answer I received from the Microsoft forum. But if this is a bug, why doesn't it apply to both of my HDDs universally?

"The Version 1803 introduced a bug into Explorer, it is unable to read the metadata on files and as a consequence cannot report the correct size of folders with sub-folders or the spare space on drives. 

Microsoft are aware and we are waiting on a fix . . . 

For the moment if you need an accurate reading of folder/drive sizes, click the link below to download a small free utility called Treesize. Using that tool, you will instantly see where this space is being used 

https://www.jam-software.com/treesize_free/"

[Tabs]

1 hour ago, Vectraat said:

Answer I received from the Microsoft forum. But if this is a bug, why doesn't it apply to both of my HDDs universally?

"The Version 1803 introduced a bug into Explorer, it is unable to read the metadata on files and as a consequence cannot report the correct size of folders with sub-folders or the spare space on drives. 

Microsoft are aware and we are waiting on a fix . . . 

For the moment if you need an accurate reading of folder/drive sizes, click the link below to download a small free utility called Treesize. Using that tool, you will instantly see where this space is being used 

https://www.jam-software.com/treesize_free/"

Do you have the link to that forum post? It'd be nice to have an authoritative source on it, and would be nice to get more information - especially since Explorer doesn't read individual file metadata to judge file sizes, it reads the entries form the master file table. The two shouldn't be related, unless the explanation has been simplified a lot.

[Vectraat]

3 minutes ago, Tabs said:

Do you have the link to that forum post? It'd be nice to have an authoritative source on it, and would be nice to get more information - especially since Explorer doesn't read individual file metadata to judge file sizes, it reads the entries form the master file table. The two shouldn't be related, unless the explanation has been simplified a lot.

Link

Personally, with the amount of time I've spent investigating this issue, I'm kinda done with it at this point. All the files ARE there on BOTH drives, but Windows decides to not report all the files existing at a folder level. So Windows just sucks; that's about it in a nutshell. 

Maybe when I have more free time I'll download the recommended applications and test with those. But I want this data to show in Windows Explorer, not a 3rd party application.

[Tabs]

4 minutes ago, Vectraat said:

Link

Personally, with the amount of time I've spent investigating this issue, I'm kinda done with it at this point. All the files ARE there on BOTH drives, but Windows decides to not report all the files existing at a folder level. So Windows just sucks; that's about it in a nutshell. 

Maybe when I have more free time I'll download the recommended applications and test with those. But I want this data to show in Windows Explorer, not a 3rd party application.

That's totally fair. However, Microsoft employees on their forums have an MSFT badge below their profile name. I wouldn't just believe the first person who replied to you on there who isn't a Microsoft employee - not without them providing an authoritative source to back it up. 

 

Though, it's totally understandable that you're sick of dealing with it at this point. If I find any more information or think of anything else that might help, I'll try to let you know.