Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD
"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:qds0a3lvjmrahn3p41lh7npmqr9ec4i3v2@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:49:11 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
| keyboard and composed:
|
| >MEB wrote:
| >
| >> Look, that test has ALWAYS been the point
| >
| >I'm not arguing for or against the existance of the file-count
| >limitation.
| >
| >> without the true results all your postings mean *squat*.
| >
| >You really don't get it, do you?
| >
| >Whether or not I or anyone else performs *the test* is one thing.
| >
| >I'm asking you (or anyone else reading this) to point to where this
| >file-count limitation was first propositioned, or by whom. Such
| >information would hopefully include a theory as to why win-98 might
| >have such a limitation, perhaps descibing the underlying mechanism
| >causing the limitation.
| >
| >I don't think that's a foolish or irrational or pointless question,
| >and it can be asked in conjunction with requests to perform *the
| >test*. And it's a question that you should be able to answer, given
| >that you seem to know so much about this issue. Nobody else here is
| >stepping up and offering an answer.
| >
| >What I have found is this:
| >
| >- The claimed max number of files per directory is 65535.
| >
|
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2006/07/WindowsConfident
ial/
| >
| >- Max number of files possible using FAT-32: 268,435,437
| >
| >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Design
| >
| >The number 268,435,437 (max number of files possible under FAT32) is
| >equal to 16k x 16k (ie, 16k directories, each with 16k files) or 4k x
| >64k (ie - 4k directories, each with 64k files).
| >
| >A check of one of my win-98 systems shows 4,870 folders and 118k
| >files, so clearly FAT-32 can have more than 4k directories, and win-98
| >can handle at least that many directories as well.
| >
| >Again, if there is a source, a document, a person, that claims (or
| >theorizes) that win-98 is practically limited to some particular
| >number of directories or files per volume, then please post that
| >information.
|
| I just posted the following question to alt.msdos.batch:
|
| ==================================================================
| I'm looking for a batch routine to create a tree of 65536 directories
| with 16 at the top level, 256 subdirectories at the next level, 4096
| at the next, and finally 65536. The reason is that I wish to test the
| hypothesis that there is a limit to the number of directories in a
| FAT32 file system.
| ==================================================================
|
| One person responded with this:
|
| ==================================================================
| Here you can see Windows properties screenshots showing FAT32
| filesystem and the directory count [1,118,480]:
|
|
http://guysalias.batcave.net/images/a-lot-of-directories.jpg
|
| FAT32 does not have a limit to the number of files or directories
| except that imposed by the size of the drive(number of clusters).
| ==================================================================
|
| - Franc Zabkar
| --
| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Excellent, part of an answer with test results. Though distinctly limited.
It shows ONLY a 4.87 gig drive/partition and just 1,118,480 folders. It
also fails to show exactly which OS was used in testing.
There is the inclusion of the hardware tag and sharing [indicating
networking], bring some special aspects which may have been involved. SO is
or was this 98 or is this an NT aspect which handles the Fat [and drives] in
a different fashion?
A single partition on a 320 [or the 127 per the other discussion] gig drive
would potentially have how many using that same test?
SO did you find any test results:
1. showing usage of 98 showing any physical manipulations; and,
2. usage on a DAILY BASIS, e.g. the normal cut/paste, delete, move,
yada-yada, of the potential hundreds of millions of files and directories on
drives; and
3. which exceed the 128 gig purported limitations, and
4. partitioned as a single drive running 98 exclusively, and
5. that might be found during usage over extended periods, and
6. in a situation of such daily usage and/or file serving/storage stature,
and
7. including of course the non-standard 4kb aspect which was purported as
non-issue?
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________