Folder Sizes

[Jess Fertudei]

Hello again,

In the old 98SE days I was reminded by others of the dangers of keeping
folders as large as some I kept. Are file and folder sizes still a concern
on XP Home SP1?

I do a lot of graphics work in Paint Shop Pro and have a folder that is 4.57
GB, 11,660 files and 111 Folders and growing by the day. Some of these are
PSP files for works in progress and are 30 to 50 megs.

Considering how many sources I keep and still collect in so many categories
(everything from trains to scenery to sports to food) having them in a main
folder with so many subs is the naturally organizable way to do it... now a
friend is telling me that this is still not recommended and is a crash
waiting to happen.

Is it?






Thanks

 

[Jim Macklin]

Are you using NTFS?


| Hello again,
|
| In the old 98SE days I was reminded by others of the
dangers of keeping
| folders as large as some I kept. Are file and folder sizes
still a concern
| on XP Home SP1?
|
| I do a lot of graphics work in Paint Shop Pro and have a
folder that is 4.57
| GB, 11,660 files and 111 Folders and growing by the day.
Some of these are
| PSP files for works in progress and are 30 to 50 megs.
|
| Considering how many sources I keep and still collect in
so many categories
| (everything from trains to scenery to sports to food)
having them in a main
| folder with so many subs is the naturally organizable way
to do it... now a
| friend is telling me that this is still not recommended
and is a crash
| waiting to happen.
|
| Is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|

 

[Jess Fertudei]

Should have thought of that info. Sorry. No. I am not as I need this stuff
to interface with other OSes on other multi boot partitions.

 

[Jim Macklin]

Precautions that apply to any FAT disk and
security/stability would still apply. The improvement in XP
is NTFS.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


| Should have thought of that info. Sorry. No. I am not as I
need this stuff
| to interface with other OSes on other multi boot
partitions.
|
|
in message
| | > Are you using NTFS?
| >
| >
| > | > | Hello again,
| > |
| > | In the old 98SE days I was reminded by others of the
| > dangers of keeping
| > | folders as large as some I kept. Are file and folder
sizes
| > still a concern
| > | on XP Home SP1?
| > |
| > | I do a lot of graphics work in Paint Shop Pro and have
a
| > folder that is 4.57
| > | GB, 11,660 files and 111 Folders and growing by the
day.
| > Some of these are
| > | PSP files for works in progress and are 30 to 50 megs.
| > |
| > | Considering how many sources I keep and still collect
in
| > so many categories
| > | (everything from trains to scenery to sports to food)
| > having them in a main
| > | folder with so many subs is the naturally organizable
way
| > to do it... now a
| > | friend is telling me that this is still not
recommended
| > and is a crash
| > | waiting to happen.
| > |
| > | Is it?
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | Thanks
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Jess.

As Jim Macklin said, the FILE system has more effect on what you are asking
about than the OPERATING system. In other words, the FAT32 limits that
apply when using Win9x/ME also apply when using FAT32 with WinXP. (The only
significant difference is the Microsoft-imposed limit that Win2K/XP cannot
format a >32 GB volume as FAT32, but can use such large volume formatted
FAT32 by Win9x/ME or another operating system.)

For official details, see this page from the WinXP Professional Resource Kit
(no difference between WinXP Pro and Home in this regard):
Size Limitations in NTFS and FAT File Systems
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_tdrn.asp

You didn't actually say that you are using FAT32. But when Jim asked, "Are
you using NTFS?", you responded with, "Should have thought of that info.
Sorry. No. I am not as I need this stuff to interface with other OSes on
other multi boot partitions."

So long as you need to access any volume from Win9x/ME, you will have to
keep those volumes formatted FAT, as you know. But, do you really need to
keep using those OSes that will not read NTFS? How much would it cost you
(in time and money) to switch all of them to WinXP? (My own computer
hassles declined by MUCH more than half when I retired Win98 back in 2001.)

RC

 

[Jess Fertudei]

Hmmmmm... well... I do want to keep the OS's intact.

Am I understanding this article to say that I need to keep the partitions to
under 32G? And am I to keep a folder under 4G or is that just individual
file sizes? If the latter were the case, then why does this folder function
at over 4G? Is it because the 111 subfolders make up the size? Is it a
timebomb of some sort?

It really does save me a lot of time having these all under one folder,
especially in XP when it refuses to remember where the last save occurred
and I have to browse all the way back to the folders again and again. I know
it might not seem it would, but it's easier to click on one drive partition
and then this folder and then have all the rest alphabetical folders under
that. I tried it the other way for a while and about ripped my hair out
wasting time looking for folders when saving graphics for potential sources.


Thanks for replying.

 

[Rock]

Hmmmmm... well... I do want to keep the OS's intact.

Am I understanding this article to say that I need to keep the partitions to
under 32G? And am I to keep a folder under 4G or is that just individual
file sizes? If the latter were the case, then why does this folder function
at over 4G? Is it because the 111 subfolders make up the size? Is it a
timebomb of some sort?

It really does save me a lot of time having these all under one folder,
especially in XP when it refuses to remember where the last save occurred
and I have to browse all the way back to the folders again and again. I know
it might not seem it would, but it's easier to click on one drive partition
and then this folder and then have all the rest alphabetical folders under
that. I tried it the other way for a while and about ripped my hair out
wasting time looking for folders when saving graphics for potential sources.


Thanks for replying.

No, you didn't read it properly. For FAT individual files are limited
to a size if 4GB, not folders. And the 32 GB limit is that XP can only
create a partition up to that size. Larger ones created in other
versions of windows are fine in XP, XP just can't create them.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Rock

"Larger ones created in other versions of windows are fine in XP, XP
just can't create them."


This is not correct. You cannot create partitions over 32 gb using "in
house" XP tools. However, XP recognises partitions over 32 gb created
with other partitioning tools.

--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Using invalid email address

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please tell the newsgroup how any
suggested solution worked for you.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Rock

"Larger ones created in other versions of windows are fine in
XP, XP
just can't create them."


This is not correct. You cannot create partitions over 32 gb

I'm sure you meant to say "You cannot create *FAT32* partitions
over 32 gb"

using "in
house" XP tools. However, XP recognises partitions over 32 gb
created
with other partitioning tools.

Isn't that the same thing he said?

 

[Rock]

Rock

"Larger ones created in other versions of windows are fine in XP, XP
just can't create them."


This is not correct. You cannot create partitions over 32 gb using "in
house" XP tools. However, XP recognises partitions over 32 gb created
with other partitioning tools.

Not sure what you're saying here Gerry, lol...we said the same thing.

 

[Jess Fertudei]

Not sure what you're saying here Gerry, lol...we said the same thing.

But are any of you saying that the original FAT32 folder I mentioned that is
"4.57 GB, 11,660 files and 111 Folders and growing by the day" is in danger
of blowing up if I continue to use it in this manner or do I need to break
it into, say, three folders A-H I-P Q-Z?

I'd really rather not do that if I don't gotta.

 

[Jim Macklin]

FAT, File Allocation Table, uses a method of tracking
folders and files that is not as robust as NTFS New
Technology File System. There are limits to the number of
files or folders the root directory and the tracking of
file changes. The problem of lost cluster is much more of a
problem with FAT systems. The more files and the deeper the
tree, the more chances to have a major problem.
FAT makes two copies of the table, NTFS logs all changes.


|
| | > Gerry Cornell wrote:
| >
| > > Rock
| > >
| > > "Larger ones created in other versions of windows are
fine in XP, XP
| > > just can't create them."
| > >
| > >
| > > This is not correct. You cannot create partitions over
32 gb using "in
| > > house" XP tools. However, XP recognises partitions
over 32 gb created
| > > with other partitioning tools.
| > >
| >
| > Not sure what you're saying here Gerry, lol...we said
the same thing.
| >
|
| But are any of you saying that the original FAT32 folder I
mentioned that is
| "4.57 GB, 11,660 files and 111 Folders and growing by the
day" is in danger
| of blowing up if I continue to use it in this manner or do
I need to break
| it into, say, three folders A-H I-P Q-Z?
|
| I'd really rather not do that if I don't gotta.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Ken

Rock refers to "other versions of windows". This is not relevant.
Partitions over 32 gb are created by tools, regardless of the version of
windows.

--

~~~~~~

Regards.

Gerry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Alex Nichol]

Considering how many sources I keep and still collect in so many categories
(everything from trains to scenery to sports to food) having them in a main
folder with so many subs is the naturally organizable way to do it... now a
friend is telling me that this is still not recommended and is a crash
waiting to happen.

No it isn't. Main folder, subfolder for projects, possibly split each
work in progress and finished versions, id sensible

 

[Ken Blake]

In

But are any of you saying that the original FAT32 folder I
mentioned
that is "4.57 GB, 11,660 files and 111 Folders and growing by
the
day" is in danger of blowing up if I continue to use it in this
manner

No, nobody's saying that, and there should be nothing to worry
about in that regard.

or do I need to break it into, say, three folders A-H I-P Q-Z?

No, not necessary.

 

[Jess Fertudei]

In


No, nobody's saying that, and there should be nothing to worry
about in that regard.




No, not necessary.

--

OK, then... thanks for that and for everyone's replies.