4 gig non-ntfs file size limit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter James
  • Start date Start date
J

James

In a number of messages I have read about a file size limit of 4 gig for
non-ntfs file systems. I have a small server running a raid 5 with to
..mdb file on Fat32 drive partitions with file sizes over 4 gig's. One
is 4.156 gig and the other is 6.660 gig. These are both access database
files. No malfunctions have been noted in these files. Am I missing
something about the limit?

James
 
James said:
In a number of messages I have read about a file size limit of 4 gig for
non-ntfs file systems. I have a small server running a raid 5 with to
.mdb file on Fat32 drive partitions with file sizes over 4 gig's. One
is 4.156 gig and the other is 6.660 gig. These are both access database
files. No malfunctions have been noted in these files. Am I missing
something about the limit?

James
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some evidence of your claim. Perhaps
you would care to type the following commands from
a Command Prompt:

chkdsk /L F: > c:\test.txt
dir F:\Database\*.mdb >> c:\test.txt
notepad c:\test.txt

Now copy & paste the text into your reply.
 
James said:
In a number of messages I have read about a file size limit of 4 gig for
non-ntfs file systems. I have a small server running a raid 5 with to
.mdb file on Fat32 drive partitions with file sizes over 4 gig's. One
is 4.156 gig and the other is 6.660 gig. These are both access database
files. No malfunctions have been noted in these files. Am I missing
something about the limit?

James
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some evidence of your claim. Perhaps
you would care to type the following commands from
a Command Prompt:

chkdsk /L F: > c:\test.txt
fsutil file createnew F:\Database\big.mdb 6000000000
dir F:\Database\*.mdb >> c:\test.txt
notepad c:\test.txt

Now copy & paste the text into your reply.
 
That may be a record for an MDB file size. You're in dangerous uncharted
water there. The maximum file size spec for Access 2003 is 2 gB. You need to
move it to SQL Server Express.


--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
 
Pegasus said:
I'd like to see some evidence of your claim. Perhaps
you would care to type the following commands from
a Command Prompt:

chkdsk /L F: > c:\test.txt
dir F:\Database\*.mdb >> c:\test.txt
notepad c:\test.txt

Now copy & paste the text into your reply.
Click to expand...
The dir I will do but to go ahead and let chkdsk fix errors without
knowing the possible outcome before hand is a no. The system is, and
has been, working without a problem & since my business is tied to it
that will only happen after I have had the time to do a backup and place
the restored files on another drive. This is part of a raid system with
5 partitions and over 500 Gigs of total data.

Dir, on the other hand, returns this information. I have also been able
to get at files, randomly, throughout the database without a problem.

Volume in drive R is C9 RAID5DRR
Volume Serial Number is 8367-FE86
Directory of R:\Win2000\Files

REPORTS MDB 6,819,840 01-13-07 1:00p Reports.mdb
REPORT~1 MDB 4,255,744 12-26-05 4:41a Reports 12-25-2005.mdb
2 file(s) 11,075,584 bytes
0 dir(s) 47,692.58 MB free

Re: the sql server suggestion by Dave - the new release is based on sql
server but as a new release it has always been my habit to let it "age"
for 6 months to a year before committing the "farm" to a completely new
system.

Later I will set aside a partition for those files only and see what
chkdsk comes up with.

James
 
James said:
The dir I will do but to go ahead and let chkdsk fix errors without
knowing the possible outcome before hand is a no. The system is, and
has been, working without a problem & since my business is tied to it
that will only happen after I have had the time to do a backup and place
the restored files on another drive. This is part of a raid system with
5 partitions and over 500 Gigs of total data.

Dir, on the other hand, returns this information. I have also been able
to get at files, randomly, throughout the database without a problem.

Volume in drive R is C9 RAID5DRR
Volume Serial Number is 8367-FE86
Directory of R:\Win2000\Files

REPORTS MDB 6,819,840 01-13-07 1:00p Reports.mdb
REPORT~1 MDB 4,255,744 12-26-05 4:41a Reports 12-25-2005.mdb
2 file(s) 11,075,584 bytes
0 dir(s) 47,692.58 MB free

Re: the sql server suggestion by Dave - the new release is based on sql
server but as a new release it has always been my habit to let it "age"
for 6 months to a year before committing the "farm" to a completely new
system.

Later I will set aside a partition for those files only and see what
chkdsk comes up with.

James
Click to expand...
I have added this post here since it should likely have been in this
location as well since the workstations accessing this database are
running Win2000 while the server OS is Win98 and the partition is a
Fat32 file system.

James
 
You can let the app continue to work with Access while it unknowingly
contains linked tables to SQL Server. I've been doing that for years.

--

Regards,

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

:
Re: the sql server suggestion by Dave - the new release is based on sql
server but as a new release it has always been my habit to let it "age"
for 6 months to a year before committing the "farm" to a completely new
system.
Click to expand...
<snip>
 
Dave said:
You can let the app continue to work with Access while it unknowingly
contains linked tables to SQL Server. I've been doing that for years.
Click to expand...
That would be true if sql server had been installed on the machine but
the new system was not even tried out as a test until mid 06 and the
smaller mdb file is dated 12/25/2005. After the trial it was removed as
was sql server. At least as much as I was able to see and at that time
it was running locally on the Win2000 workstation as sql server will not
run on Win98se. Between then and mid 2006 it had grown to about 5.5 gig.

James
 
James said:
That would be true if sql server had been installed on the machine but
the new system was not even tried out as a test until mid 06 and the
smaller mdb file is dated 12/25/2005. After the trial it was removed as
was sql server. At least as much as I was able to see and at that time
it was running locally on the Win2000 workstation as sql server will not
run on Win98se. Between then and mid 2006 it had grown to about 5.5 gig.

James
Click to expand...
I also just re-read my original post which has not been carried through.
The limit is supposed to be due to a non-NTFS file system which should
mean that even sql server should not work beyond 4 gig on a Fat32
formatted drive. Since I am working with a number of older versions and
will also be working with Linux in the future going NTFS is not an
option if the files are to be visible to the other versions. The older
versions are still around because I also have other apps that run best
on them and have yet to change the server. To many other higher level
problems to deal with first. The squeaky wheel syndrome.

James
 
Dave said:
Look at MSDE and or SQL Server 2005 Express

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/msde/download.mspx

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/sql/register/default.aspx
Click to expand...
You keep pointing me to sql solutions. I am running Win98se on the
server. Has something changed to allow sql server to run on Win98se? I
am also locked into the database for which the app was designed. Only
their newer version is built around sql server and that version has not
been around long enough to bet the "farm" on it as yet. There are also
a number of features missing in the new version that are extensively
used in the older one. They are planning to add them in the future so
"in the future" is a more likely move-over point.

James
 
James said:
Dir, on the other hand, returns this information. I have also been able
to get at files, randomly, throughout the database without a problem.

Volume in drive R is C9 RAID5DRR
Volume Serial Number is 8367-FE86
Directory of R:\Win2000\Files

REPORTS MDB 6,819,840 01-13-07 1:00p Reports.mdb
REPORT~1 MDB 4,255,744 12-26-05 4:41a Reports 12-25-2005.mdb
2 file(s) 11,075,584 bytes
0 dir(s) 47,692.58 MB free


James
Click to expand...

Those file sizes are 6.8MB and 4.3MB.
You are nowhere near the limit for FAT32.
 
John said:
Those file sizes are 6.8MB and 4.3MB.
You are nowhere near the limit for FAT32.
Click to expand...
You know every now and then it seems I need to go back for a refresher
in Reading101. This was all brought about by an error message sent back
from Winrar during an archive indicating I had tried to pass the 4 gig
limit. Then it seems I just got carried away. Thanks for the reminder
to read first. Just have to find that missing neuron.

James
 
James said:
I have added this post here since it should likely have been in this
location as well since the workstations accessing this database are
running Win2000 while the server OS is Win98 and the partition is a
Fat32 file system.

James
Click to expand...
As I was reminded by John in the General Newsgroup. 4.. & 6.. are a
long way from the 4 gig limit. Back to reading101. Sorry to all for
the post that should not have been. An error message from Winrar
indicated I had passed the 4 gig limit when trying to archive the main
folder and I apparently just did not read what I was looking at for the
two database files.

James

James
 
James said:
.... after I have had the time to do a backup and place
the restored files on another drive.
Click to expand...
I'd say your first priority is a backup. I'd say that your *only*
priority at this time is a backup.

Cheers,

Cliff
 
James said:
You know every now and then it seems I need to go back for a refresher
in Reading101. This was all brought about by an error message sent back
from Winrar during an archive indicating I had tried to pass the 4 gig
limit. Then it seems I just got carried away. Thanks for the reminder
to read first. Just have to find that missing neuron.

James
Click to expand...

You also need a refresher on chkdsk.exe. Using the /L switch
will tell you if you're dealing with a FAT32 or an NTFS volume.
It will NOT write anything to disk unless you use the /F switch.
 
No, nothing has changed nor will it ever for win9x. If you're still running
win9x you have other more important problems to deal with.

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
 
Dave said:
No, nothing has changed nor will it ever for win9x. If you're still
running win9x you have other more important problems to deal with.
Click to expand...
No actually I don't. In fact I also have a Win3x, a couple of Win95x's,
2 other 98x's, 2 Win2000's (these being the newest) & a couple of Linux
boxes I am checking out. Of all the machines the most stable one is an
old original Win95b that just keeps playing & playing. New is not
always better just more costly. By practicing reasonably safe computing
and checking the systems periodically, having an effective firewall on
the edge I have been very fortunate on the virus, etc. side. With all
the machines & all the drives I have also only had 2 drive failures over
the years. Just plain lucky I guess but I'll run with it and say thanks.

James
 
Back
Top