48 bit LBA, does it ever really work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wooducoodu
  • Start date Start date
don't post somebody's opinion site

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496
Click to expand...

Under "Windows 2000", it lists 2 lines for "FAT" (which seems to be
referring to FAT32, so why the seperate lines here? Perhaps MS does
know right here, but messes up anyway.)

It's also 2^32 SECTORS (512-byte units). The limit for bytes is 2^41.

I KNOW the 32GB limit does not exist. I had a 250GB FAT32 drive
installed (it's now NTFS because of the file size limit).

There used to be a 32GB limit imposed by HARDWARE, not the OS. Also,
it doesn't apply to modern systems. The same is true about the 128GB
limit.

What I don't KNOW, is the limit for FAT32 SYSTEM drives. People keep
ignoring that word.

The stated file size limits are being imposed by the OS, not by the
file system.

--
92 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
 
Gary H wrote in

Yes. Windows 2000 can use any size FAT32 drive, it just won't format one
that large.
Click to expand...

Did you mean to leave out the word "system"? Words do have meanings,
and what I said referred to a system drive (one that the OS is booted
from) NOT a data drive. I already know that w2k can support data
drives larger than FAT32. I had a 250GB/FAT32 data drive a few months
ago when people were saying it was impossible (and MS didn't say
THAT).

I was going to try that, but ran into some uncooperative hardware.
Maybe tomorrow.

--
92 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
 
Gary H wrote in
The problem was that, the article I objected to leaves out the word
"format" and claims that w2k is limited to 32GB FAT32 drives. THAT
claim is not true, as the article later contradicts itself.
Click to expand...

Correct, I entirely agree that 2000 can use FAT32 partitions of any size
(up to the limits of the filesystem), it just won't format one larger than
32GB.
 
Ken said:
Windows 2000 formats my 120 GB drives without any problems,
even at installation process. The limit is 137 GB.
Click to expand...

We're talking about a FAT32 partition, not NTFS.
 
Gary H wrote in

Correct, I entirely agree that 2000 can use FAT32 partitions of any size
(up to the limits of the filesystem), it just won't format one larger than
32GB.
Click to expand...

The filesystem limit seems to be 2TB. That's because of the use of
sector pointers to identify a sector on disk. The sector pointers are
32 bits long. The limit in bytes is 2^(9+32). The 9 comes from the 512
byte sector size. 2^(9+32)=2TB.

FAT32 (which is actually FAT28) allows 2^28 clusters which can be up
to 64KB (32KB for DOS-based Windows) in size, giving a limit of
2^(28+16). The 16 comes from 64K=2^16. That's 16TB.

FILE size is limited by file pointers, which address individual bytes.
Therefore, the file size limit with 32 bit pointers is 2^32=4GB. w2k
can use 64 bits (which allows larger files), but for some strange
reason, only with NTFS.

With 64 bits (as in NTFS), disk size can be up to 2^(64+9) bytes, 8ZB
(Zettabytes = Giga-Terabytes). File size can be up to 2^64 bytes
(16EB, Exabytes = Giga-Gigabytes). However, you're effectively limited
by the hardware interface (that LBA48), so you can't have more than
2^(48+9) bytes. That's 128PB (Petabytes = Mega-Gigabytes). Someday,
these really big numbers may seem ordinary.

BTW, for these large metric prefixes, I looked at
http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/dictunit.htm#SI The large prefixes:

Kilo- 10^3 (approx 1024)
Mega- 10^6 (approx 1024^2)
Giga- 10^9 (approx 1024^3)
Tera- 10^12 (approx 1024^4)
Peta- 10^15 (approx 1024^5)
Exa- 10^18 (approx 1024^6)
Zetta- 10^21 (approx 1024^7)
Yotta- 10^24 (approx 1024^8)

--
92 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
 
Gary said:
Here is the entire quote of the paragraph that says there's a limit: "
Windows 2000, XP and Windows Server 2003 support FAT32 partitions
(Windows NT 4.0 did not) but there is a maximum size limit of 32GB."

Sorry, I don't read invisible text (where the word "format" must be).
Click to expand...

You're quibbling with semantics. It also says "Windows 2000, XP and Windows
Server 2003 can use larger than 32GB partitions..." and gives you the
procedure for how to make one and then install to it.

I thought the idea was to figure out how to use a FAT32 partition larger
than 32GB; not to hold an English class on the web page's construction.
 
Gary said:
Under "Windows 2000", it lists 2 lines for "FAT" (which seems to be
referring to FAT32, so why the seperate lines here? Perhaps MS does
know right here, but messes up anyway.)
Click to expand...

No, it has one line for FAT and one line for FAT32.

Windows 2000

File System Max. Partition Size Max. File Size
--------------------------------------------------
FAT 2^32 2^32
NTFS 2^64 2^64
FAT32 32 GB 2^32

FAT is what people sometimes call FAT16, since FAT32 came out.
It's also 2^32 SECTORS (512-byte units). The limit for bytes is 2^41.

I KNOW the 32GB limit does not exist. I had a 250GB FAT32 drive
installed (it's now NTFS because of the file size limit).

There used to be a 32GB limit imposed by HARDWARE, not the OS.
Click to expand...

Which is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with the table.
 
No, it has one line for FAT and one line for FAT32.
Click to expand...

Which would make sense if there was a FAT larger than 32.
Windows 2000

File System Max. Partition Size Max. File Size
--------------------------------------------------
FAT 2^32 2^32
NTFS 2^64 2^64
FAT32 32 GB 2^32

FAT is what people sometimes call FAT16, since FAT32 came out.
Click to expand...

That's confusing. FAT without a number is obviously a generic term
(FAT32, FAT16, FAT12, FATx). That's the way English works (like
"block" does not automatically mean "blue block", even if the first
block you ever saw was blue).

I made a mistake when I said that 2^32 was for FAT32, and am now
admitting it. It's correct for FAT16 (32 = 16 {the FAT entry size} +
16 {the power of 2 for 64K, the max. cluster size}).

FAT32 (actually FAT28, according to MS) itself has a limit of 16TB,
although w2k will limit it to 2TB (as I explained in another post).

The 32GB limit does not exist (as an OS limit). I am testing this for
system drives, and it is working (the earlier failures seem to be
because of a drive that went bad, and failed BEFORE w2k was
installed).
Which is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with the table.
Click to expand...

It's relevant here ONLY because it's NOT present in w2k, and so could
be the cause of your confusion. It may seem to bea w2k limit if your
hardware is limited to 32GB. This has nothing to do with w2k.

You could always try the instructions on that "opinion site". That is,
if you're not afraid of the truth.

--
92 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
 
And what 'interpretation' do you derive from that?
Click to expand...

Looks like we have a "believer" here, who doesn't care about the
truth.

I know it doesn't really MEAN anything, but it's interesting that the
word "believe" has LIE in it.
 
Gary said:
Which would make sense if there was a FAT larger than 32.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all.

FAT32 is differentiated from FAT(16) because there are significant differences.

That's confusing. FAT without a number is obviously a generic term
(FAT32, FAT16, FAT12, FATx). That's the way English works (like
"block" does not automatically mean "blue block", even if the first
block you ever saw was blue).
Click to expand...

You seem to be more interested in bitching about language than figuring out
how anything works.

The only thing FAT12 has been used for in ages is formatting floppy drives
and that has no bearing on hard drive partitions.

When you see "FAT" in context with Windows 2000 and hard drive partitions
it means FAT16. Bitch all you want about 'the way English works' but if you
ever plan on understanding MS knowledge base articles you need to learn
their lingo.
I made a mistake when I said that 2^32 was for FAT32, and am now
admitting it. It's correct for FAT16 (32 = 16 {the FAT entry size} +
16 {the power of 2 for 64K, the max. cluster size}).

FAT32 (actually FAT28, according to MS) itself has a limit of 16TB,
although w2k will limit it to 2TB (as I explained in another post).

The 32GB limit does not exist (as an OS limit). I am testing this for
system drives, and it is working (the earlier failures seem to be
because of a drive that went bad, and failed BEFORE w2k was
installed).
Click to expand...

Good. Told ya so.
It's relevant here ONLY because it's NOT present in w2k, and so could
be the cause of your confusion. It may seem to bea w2k limit if your
hardware is limited to 32GB. This has nothing to do with w2k.
Click to expand...

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;184006

"You cannot format a volume larger than 32 GB in size using the FAT32 file
system in Windows 2000. The Windows 2000 FastFAT driver can mount and
support volumes larger than 32 GB that use the FAT32 file system (subject
to the other limits), but you cannot create one using the Format tool. This
behavior is by design."
You could always try the instructions on that "opinion site". That is,
if you're not afraid of the truth.
Click to expand...

Considering I GAVE you that 'opinion site' that has got to be one of the
silliest things you've said to date.

 
Luke said:
Looks like we have a "believer" here, who doesn't care about the
truth.
Click to expand...

And what do you think 'the truth' is?

I know it doesn't really MEAN anything, but it's interesting that the
word "believe" has LIE in it.
Click to expand...

You were right when you said it doesn't mean anything.

 
This message is going like all the others, too much nonsense to need
any further replies.

That makes no sense at all.

FAT32 is differentiated from FAT(16) because there are significant differences.



You seem to be more interested in bitching about language than figuring out
how anything works.

The only thing FAT12 has been used for in ages is formatting floppy drives
and that has no bearing on hard drive partitions.

When you see "FAT" in context with Windows 2000 and hard drive partitions
it means FAT16. Bitch all you want about 'the way English works' but if you
ever plan on understanding MS knowledge base articles you need to learn
their lingo.


Good. Told ya so.


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;184006

"You cannot format a volume larger than 32 GB in size using the FAT32 file
system in Windows 2000. The Windows 2000 FastFAT driver can mount and
support volumes larger than 32 GB that use the FAT32 file system (subject
to the other limits), but you cannot create one using the Format tool. This
behavior is by design."


Considering I GAVE you that 'opinion site' that has got to be one of the
silliest things you've said to date.
Click to expand...

--
92 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
 
Windows 2000 will not format a 32+ Gig drive with a FAT32 filesystem.
It will only format things that large as NTFS,
Click to expand...

OK, but FAT filesystems is to obsolete.

which is the point of this part of the discussion.
Click to expand...

I can't se that. Could be missing in the news server.
 
Ken said:
Did not know that. Did not know people use FAT today
in Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
Click to expand...

That's why the previous postings were quoted in the message you replied to.
They gave the context of it rather than just the last sentence you read.
 
That's why the previous postings were quoted in the message you replied to.
They gave the context of it rather than just the last sentence you read.
Click to expand...

I don't have that here, and therefore can't read it.
Sorry about that.
Something must be missing in the server or my database.
 
Back
Top