B
Bob
I have an older system running Win98se and using FAT32 on
a 120GB drive that I have been using as a file server in
my home. I'm in the process of replacing that system with
a newer one that is running Win2K and has a 250GB drive.
On the new system, I broke the 250GB drive into four equal
partitions of 58.4GB each (after subtracting out the
overhead of the file system) and accepted the default
block size, which I guess was 4096 bytes. I then set up an
overnight network file transfer to copy 54.5GB worth of
files from the old system to the new one.
I was surprised to discover that the 54.5GB of files from
the FAT32 file system would not fit into one of the 58.4GB
partitions of the NTFS file system. I wound up splitting
the files into two of the new partitions for a total of
87.4GB. This is a 60% increase in size !
Well, I was shocked, but realized that it must have been
the 4K block size that was to blame, so I took one of the
remaining, as yet unused, partitions and told Win2K to
reformat it as NTFS using 512 byte blocks. Surely, this
would fix the problem I thought. I then copied the files
from one of the first two partitions (with 4K blocks) into
the reformatted partition with 512 byte blocks). Much to
my surprise, the amount of space required was exactly the
same in both partitions; 54.2GB. I don't understand this
because there are litterally 1000's of files involved and
one would expect to see at least some difference with a
different block size.
I then decided to take the final unused NTFS partition and
reformat it as FAT32 so I could confirm that that was the
only real difference and was responsible for the size
bloat. I tried both a quick format and a full format, but
either way, it tried and then gave up saying "Unable to
complete format." or something very close to that. I know
you can't covert an NTFS file system back to FAT32, but I
thought that I could at least reformat it back if I didn't
care about the contents (of which there were none). So, I
don't understand that either.
Finally, in the research that I've done since, I've noted
several places that say that in WinXP, one can't create a
FAT32 file system larger than 32GB. I don't remember if
that limit also exists for Win2K, but if it does, then
that is probably why I can't reformat those 58.4GB
partitions using FAT32. But, then, I have to wonder why
the OS even gives me that option when it already knows the
size of the partition.
If FAT32 is always limited to a maximum of 32GB, then I
also have to ask how it is that I was able to create a
120GB FAT32 partition under Win98se. Perhaps there was
some magic done by the disk controller on that system that
made this possible. Its been so long since I installed
that drive that I no longer remember the details, but if
that's the case, the perhaps that disk controller magic is
also responsible for the storage efficiency of that system.
I'd be most grateful for any light that anyone can shed on
any of these mysteries.
a 120GB drive that I have been using as a file server in
my home. I'm in the process of replacing that system with
a newer one that is running Win2K and has a 250GB drive.
On the new system, I broke the 250GB drive into four equal
partitions of 58.4GB each (after subtracting out the
overhead of the file system) and accepted the default
block size, which I guess was 4096 bytes. I then set up an
overnight network file transfer to copy 54.5GB worth of
files from the old system to the new one.
I was surprised to discover that the 54.5GB of files from
the FAT32 file system would not fit into one of the 58.4GB
partitions of the NTFS file system. I wound up splitting
the files into two of the new partitions for a total of
87.4GB. This is a 60% increase in size !
Well, I was shocked, but realized that it must have been
the 4K block size that was to blame, so I took one of the
remaining, as yet unused, partitions and told Win2K to
reformat it as NTFS using 512 byte blocks. Surely, this
would fix the problem I thought. I then copied the files
from one of the first two partitions (with 4K blocks) into
the reformatted partition with 512 byte blocks). Much to
my surprise, the amount of space required was exactly the
same in both partitions; 54.2GB. I don't understand this
because there are litterally 1000's of files involved and
one would expect to see at least some difference with a
different block size.
I then decided to take the final unused NTFS partition and
reformat it as FAT32 so I could confirm that that was the
only real difference and was responsible for the size
bloat. I tried both a quick format and a full format, but
either way, it tried and then gave up saying "Unable to
complete format." or something very close to that. I know
you can't covert an NTFS file system back to FAT32, but I
thought that I could at least reformat it back if I didn't
care about the contents (of which there were none). So, I
don't understand that either.
Finally, in the research that I've done since, I've noted
several places that say that in WinXP, one can't create a
FAT32 file system larger than 32GB. I don't remember if
that limit also exists for Win2K, but if it does, then
that is probably why I can't reformat those 58.4GB
partitions using FAT32. But, then, I have to wonder why
the OS even gives me that option when it already knows the
size of the partition.
If FAT32 is always limited to a maximum of 32GB, then I
also have to ask how it is that I was able to create a
120GB FAT32 partition under Win98se. Perhaps there was
some magic done by the disk controller on that system that
made this possible. Its been so long since I installed
that drive that I no longer remember the details, but if
that's the case, the perhaps that disk controller magic is
also responsible for the storage efficiency of that system.
I'd be most grateful for any light that anyone can shed on
any of these mysteries.