largest valid size for FAT32 FS?

[KevinGPO]

What is the largest valid size for FAT32 file system?

I tried creating & formating a partition of 41.24GB as FAT32. It wasn't
until at the end at 100% that is complained saying something about size too
big. Then the partition becomes inusable.

Any advise?

 

[WTC]

What is the largest valid size for FAT32 file system?

I tried creating & formating a partition of 41.24GB as FAT32. It wasn't
until at the end at 100% that is complained saying something about size
too
big. Then the partition becomes inusable.

Any advise?

A partition can have up to 32 gigabytes in size for a FAT32 file system.
Also a file cannot go beyond 4 gigabytes in size.

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314463

 

[Never anonymous Bud]

A partition can have up to 32 gigabytes in size for a FAT32 file system.
Also a file cannot go beyond 4 gigabytes in size.

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314463

I have (in W2K) FAT32 partitions of 100+ gigs.

It's a limit of the controller you use for the HDs.

:You cannot format a volume larger than 32 gigabytes (GB)
:in size using the FAT32 file system during the Windows XP
:installation process.

Which is NOT the same as saying you can't HAVE partitions
larger than 32 gigs.

:Windows XP can mount and support FAT32 volumes larger
:than 32 GB (subject to the other limits),

You just need to partition them with something other than XP.






Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...

Remove XYZ to email me

 

[WTC]

I have (in W2K) FAT32 partitions of 100+ gigs.

It's a limit of the controller you use for the HDs.

:You cannot format a volume larger than 32 gigabytes (GB)
:in size using the FAT32 file system during the Windows XP
:installation process.

Which is NOT the same as saying you can't HAVE partitions
larger than 32 gigs.

:Windows XP can mount and support FAT32 volumes larger
:than 32 GB (subject to the other limits),

You just need to partition them with something other than XP.

Thank-you for pointing this out, after reading my post I realize I made it
sound like you cannot have a partition more than 32 gigabytes in size which
is clearly not the case when you are not partitioning the hard drive with
the Windows XP CD.

 

[Dave Patrick]

From the resource kit;

Table 3.10 FAT16 Size Limits

Description Limit
Maximum file size 2^32 - 1 bytes
Maximum volume size 4 GB
Files per volume 2^16

Maximum Sizes on FAT32 Volumes
The FAT32 volume must have at least 65,527 clusters. The maximum number of
clusters on a FAT32 volume is 4,177,918. Windows 2000 creates volumes up to
32 GB, but you can use larger volumes created by other operating systems
such as Windows 98. Table 3.11 lists FAT32 size limits.

Table 3.11 FAT32 Size Limits

Description Limit
Maximum file size 2^32 - 1 bytes
Maximum volume size 32 GB (This is due to the Windows 2000 format utility.
The maximum volume size that Windows 98 can create is 127.53 GB).Files per
volume Approximately 4 million

Important

Windows 2000 can format new FAT32 volumes up to 32 GB in size but can mount
larger volumes (for example, up to 127.53 GB and 4,177,918 clusters from a
volume formatted with the limits of Windows 98). It is possible to mount
volumes that exceed these limits, but doing so has not been tested and is
not recommended.

Maximum Sizes on NTFS Volumes
In theory, the maximum NTFS volume size is 2^32 clusters. However, even if
there were hardware available to supply a logical volume of that capacity,
there are other limitations to the maximum size of a volume.

One of these limitations is partition tables. By industry standards,
partition tables are limited to 2^32 sectors. Sector size, another
limitation, is a function of hardware and industry standards, and is
typically 512 bytes. While sector sizes might increase in the future, the
current size puts a limit on a single volume of 2 terabytes (2^32 * 512
bytes, or 241 bytes).

For now, 2 terabytes should be considered the practical limit for both
physical and logical volumes using NTFS.

The maximum number of files on an NTFS volume is 2^32 - 1. Table 3.12 lists
NTFS size limits.

Table 3.12 NTFS Size Limits

Description Limit
Maximum file size 264 bytes - 1 KB (On disk format)
244 bytes - 64 KB (Implementation)

Maximum volume size 264 allocation units (On disk format)
2^32 allocation units (Implementation)

Files per volume 2^32 - 1


--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

:
| What is the largest valid size for FAT32 file system?
|
| I tried creating & formating a partition of 41.24GB as FAT32. It wasn't
| until at the end at 100% that is complained saying something about size
too
| big. Then the partition becomes inusable.
|
| Any advise?
|
|

 

[KevinGPO]

Okay. I am using Windows 2000. But if I boot using my Windows 98SE CD then I
can create a 50GB FAT32 partition?

 

[Les Herrman]

What is the largest valid size for FAT32 file system?

I tried creating & formating a partition of 41.24GB as FAT32. It wasn't
until at the end at 100% that is complained saying something about size too
big. Then the partition becomes inusable.

Any advise?

You have already recieved several answers on how to format a drive
larger than 32 Gig to Fat 32.

You should realize though there is a reason why XP does not format
higher than 32 gig in Fat 32. Once you get over 32 Gig the FAT 32
file system becomes much more inefficient than the NTFS file system.
The main reason for this is because the cluster sizes for the drive
become so large that you end up wasting a lot of space on the drive
just saving simple files to it. Wheras the NTFS file system does not
have this same problem.

 

[KevinGPO]

Hold on. If I have a 50GB FAT32 partition, what is the size restriction on a
single file?

For example, can you have a 4.7GB DVD image file stored under FAT32?

 

[Never anonymous Bud]

Hold on. If I have a 50GB FAT32 partition, what is the size restriction on a
single file?

For example, can you have a 4.7GB DVD image file stored under FAT32?

No, you need NTFS for files of 4 gigs or larger.



Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...

Remove XYZ to email me

 

[Guest]

Have 2 querries. Not sure at what forum to ask #2.

Win XP /SP II

1. My friend here had his HD partitoned (unbeknownst to him) into C: / FAT
32 and D: / NTFS. Looks like D: was set up mainly for backups.

What is the prime dif between the 2 types of formats and why would anyone
have both on same HD? Is this wise? Could this be problematical under some
circumstances?

2. In old days, you pushed the button to turn off the comp; nowadays,
Windows turns off the power automatically when it's shut down. What do you
call this type of newer shut-down method?

Somewhere I got the idea that this was a property of an 'ATX' comp - though
I read that this is primarily a 'form factor' descriptor for motherboard,
casing and power supply.

I thought this type of shutdown was performed via a relay (it sounds like a
relay clicking at shutdown); yet there seems to be no relay in either the
power supply or on motherborad or casing (unless an SCR or TRIAC is used - a
bit risky, lest optically coupled).

The old Intel form factor specs mention neither - though there is mention of
an (essentially) gating voltage via a simple pull-up resistor in the power
supply. Possibly Windows pulls this up to +5Vdc for long enough at shutdown
to gate the entire powersupply off - in which case prime power (240 Vac,
here) would still be present at power supply input, which, again, seems a bit
risky and a safety hazard.

This particular system has the extra +12 Vdc 2 x 2 plug on motherboard to
power supply (presumably for a voltage regulator near the processor).

I'm really curious about all this. We just had a power supply failure and
fear it may have damaged the MB. Appreciate any info on it.

 

[Enkidu]

I believe that you might have to boot a Win98SE system and then use the
format utility, rather than just boot the CD. If you see the distinction.

Cheers,

Cliff

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

What is the largest valid size for FAT32 file system?

I tried creating & formating a partition of 41.24GB as FAT32. It
wasn't until at the end at 100% that is complained saying something
about size too big. Then the partition becomes inusable.

FAT32 partitions can go up to 2048GB (2TB). Windows XP, however, can not
*create* a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB. In general I recommend that you
use NTFS partitions, especially for large partitions, but if for some reason
you want one (or need one because, for example, you are dual-booting with an
older non-NTFS-aware operating system), just create the partition externally
with FDISK from an older version of Windows, such as 98. Although Windows XP
won't create a lrage FAT32 partition, it will happily use one if it's
created externally.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Hold on. If I have a 50GB FAT32 partition, what is the size
restriction on a single file?

For example, can you have a 4.7GB DVD image file stored under FAT32?

No. The FAT32 limit is 4GB (minus a couple of bytes). The size of the
partition is irrelevant.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Have 2 querries. Not sure at what forum to ask #2.

Win XP /SP II

1. My friend here had his HD partitoned (unbeknownst to him) into
C: / FAT 32 and D: / NTFS. Looks like D: was set up mainly for
backups.

What is the prime dif between the 2 types of formats

Try a google search on NTFS FAT32. There's lots of information there, at
sites such as http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

and why would
anyone have both on same HD?

There's only one good reason I know of--because you are dual booting an
NTFS-aware operating system and a non-NTFS-aware operating system

Is this wise?

If you're in the situation I described above, sure.

Could this be
problematical under some circumstances?

No. No problem at all. Windows XP, whether Home or Professional, can access
NTFS, FAT32, FAT16, and FAT12, in any combination at all, and regardless of
what file system it's installed on.

2. In old days, you pushed the button to turn off the comp; nowadays,
Windows turns off the power automatically when it's shut down. What
do you call this type of newer shut-down method?

If it has a special name, I don't know it. I just call it "automatic
shutdown."

Somewhere I got the idea that this was a property of an 'ATX' comp -
though I read that this is primarily a 'form factor' descriptor for
motherboard, casing and power supply.

It requires support for ACPI (Advanced Configuration & Power Interface).
Read here: http://www.acpi.info/

Also read here: http://aumha.org/win5/a/shtdwnxp.php

 

[david epsom dot com dot au]

The limitation is in the file byte pointer used for
random file access, and in the file size number,
not in the disk storage as such. If you used large
clusters, you could have a very large file, but you
could not have a directory entry for the file, and
you could not modify or copy the file.

 

[david epsom dot com dot au]

These large clusters are very fast, and hard disk space is
cheap, so large FAT volumes are a very efficient use of money
when creating a fast drive for large files.

But Windows won't make mount points or hard links in a
FAT volume.

 

[Plato]

What is the largest valid size for FAT32 file system?

32 gig or so thereabouts if doing with XP.

At least 180 gig if doing with dos fdisk.

 

[Guest]

Re: Ken Blake, MVP, 19 Feb., '06 answer to my 2 queries.

OK. Thanx loads for the links. Will check shortly.

As for Q2, this is getting to be a bit of a mystery. Since yesterday, saw 2
more systems installed by apparently same party, both w/ FAT 32 on one and
NTFS
on other partition.

However, there's no sign of a 'dual-boot' setup; only Win XP - on
drive C: - only. Also, no boot manager and no boot choice at startup.

Presumably, then, there might be some other valid, logical reason for this
state of affairs. I read somewhere that NTFS offers higher security (but that
there were also some undesirables and incompatibilities involved). So unless
it has something to do w/ better security for system and data file backups, I
don't see why there'd be a need to complicate things (Murphy's law).

Moreover, what other NTFS compatible OS (aside from Win XP, which is already
on drive C: / FAT32), would one conceivably want to install in future? And if
one were to in future inclined to install a 'non-NTFS-aware' OS, what need of
NTFS?

The people who had these systems installed are ordinary folks. They wouldn't
know a partition from a hole in the ground - much less the dif between FAT32
and NTFS. I'm in a similar boat - until i check out those links. Until then,
I'm still wondering what the advantage, if any, could be.

Again, do appreciate the links and your comments - but the mystery lingers...
OK. I'm off to those links. Hopefully we'll see the light soon enough.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Ken Blake, MVP, 19 Feb., '06 answer to my 2 queries.

OK. Thanx loads for the links. Will check shortly.

You're welcome. Glad to help.

As for Q2, this is getting to be a bit of a mystery. Since yesterday,
saw 2 more systems installed by apparently same party, both w/ FAT 32
on one and NTFS
on other partition.

However, there's no sign of a 'dual-boot' setup; only Win XP - on
drive C: - only. Also, no boot manager and no boot choice at startup.

I certainly didn't state that every time someone uses both file systems, it
was because he was dual-booting.

Presumably, then, there might be some other valid, logical reason for
this state of affairs.

People do all sorts of things for reasons that *I* don't consider valid. My
point was that*I* don't know of any other reason I consider valid besides
the dual-boot solution I mentioned.

Why don't you ask the person who set these systems up why he did it. Report
back here, and I (and perhaps others) will be happy to tell my view of
whether the reason is valid. Then you'll be free to evaluate my view vs. his
and make up your mind what *you* consider valid.

 

[Kerry Brown]

Re: Ken Blake, MVP, 19 Feb., '06 answer to my 2 queries.

OK. Thanx loads for the links. Will check shortly.

As for Q2, this is getting to be a bit of a mystery. Since yesterday,
saw 2 more systems installed by apparently same party, both w/ FAT 32
on one and NTFS
on other partition.

However, there's no sign of a 'dual-boot' setup; only Win XP - on
drive C: - only. Also, no boot manager and no boot choice at startup.

The most common reason for this is a lazy tech installing XP. They use a 3rd
party app to create the initial partition or they use a network install that
boots from a DOS floppy. Both methods can be used and create an NTFS
partition but it takes a bit of work. Another possible reason is an OEM
restore procedure was used. Some OEM restore procedures only work with FAT32
parttions.

Kerry