NTFS??!!

[Ken Blake, MVP]

wrote in message


Yes, hence the 7.99G FAT32 C: for 4k clusters
I see 102G FAT32 is 32k clusters, so presumably there are rollovers
for 8k-16k at (say) 32G and 16k-32k at (say) 64G. I'd have expected
32G and 128G though (noting that other issues may kick in at

128G)


No, the default rules are that 8GB to 16GB FAT32 partitions use
16K clusters, and everything over 32GB uses 32K clusters.

 

[Ron Martell]

You can force the matter. But the resulting number of clusters can get
too large for some of he system's utilities (eg scandisk; defrag) to
work. IIRC you will be OK at a 13GB partition, the problems arise if
over 16G is formatted this way

That is correct. The critical factor is the total number of clusters
(allocation units) on the drive. Anything more than 4.1 million means
that Scandisk and Defrag (also many other disk utilities including
Norton) will not work on that drive.

The default cluster values set by Microsoft limit drives to 50% of the
maximum (e.g. just over 2 million clusters) except for drives larger
than 64gb which will use 32K clusters (64K clusters are not supported
on FAT32 in Windows 9x).


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Ron Martell]

No, the default rules are that 8GB to 16GB FAT32 partitions use
16K clusters, and everything over 32GB uses 32K clusters.

Up to 8 gb = 4K clusters (maximum = approx 2 million clusters)
8 gb to 16 gb = 8K clusters (maximum = approx 2 million clusters)
16 gb to 32 gb = 16K clusters (maximum = approx 2 million clusters)
32 gb to 128 gb = 32K clusters (maximum = 4.1 million clusters)

For some reason, Microsoft decided to be extra conservative with the
default cluster size choice for drives under 32 gb. Insofar as I am
aware there is no reason to limit drives to only 2 million clusters,
except perhaps for speed/performance considerations because of the
total number of entries in the FAT.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Shane]

You can force the matter. But the resulting number of clusters can get
too large for some of he system's utilities (eg scandisk; defrag) to
work. IIRC you will be OK at a 13GB partition, the problems arise if
over 16G is formatted this way

Thanks Alex,

Didn't see your response originally.

Shane

 

[Guest]

WindowsXP used NTFS instead of FAT by default. It's far more secure and stable, and WindowsXP cannot format your primary partition >32GB, so NTFS just makes sense. Don't worry, you will never miss FAT32! It's obsolete.

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:41:06 -0800, "Scott_L"

WindowsXP used NTFS instead of FAT by default. It's far more secure and stable

It's no more bulletproof in the face of hardware disasters, yet is far
more difficult to recover data from. That's a problem.

and WindowsXP cannot format your primary partition >32GB,
so NTFS just makes sense.

Great logic. XP has a brain-dead formatter, so let's trust it to hide
our data where we can't get it back. Riiight.

Don't worry, you will never miss FAT32! It's obsolete.

Spoken like one who has never had to do data recovery, or formally
clean up malware. The only OS that can read and write NTFS without a
shadow of FUD is NT, and NT can only effectively run and manage the HD
from the installation on that HD. Do you need me to join the dots?

-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Hmmm... what was the *other* idea?