Large hard drive NTFS vs FAT32
in [Computer]
|
Prev: Notebookempfehlung?
Next: Computer won't boot from CD
From: Paul on 29 Mar 2010 18:56 James D. Andrews wrote: > I'm coming across so much conflicting information out there with more > details than I need. I'm not looking for NTFS vs. FAT32 pros & cons. > > Simply put: What is the maximum HDD size FAT32 can handle? If I get a > 500GB-1TB drive, must I use NTFS? > > (Win XP) > > Thanks > With this utility, you can make your FAT32 as big as you want. http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/index.htm?fat32format.htm http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/download/fat32format.zip The article here says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat32#FAT32 "limiting volume size to 2 TiB on a hard disk with 512 byte sectors" HTH, Paul
From: James D. Andrews on 31 Mar 2010 14:51 "Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message news:horb62$uf1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > James D. Andrews wrote: >> I'm coming across so much conflicting information out there with more >> details than I need. I'm not looking for NTFS vs. FAT32 pros & cons. >> >> Simply put: What is the maximum HDD size FAT32 can handle? If I get a >> 500GB-1TB drive, must I use NTFS? >> >> (Win XP) >> >> Thanks > > With this utility, you can make your FAT32 as big as you want. > > http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/index.htm?fat32format.htm > > http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/download/fat32format.zip > > The article here says: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat32#FAT32 > > "limiting volume size to 2 TiB on a hard disk with 512 byte sectors" > > HTH, > Paul Thanks Paul for answering my question. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: James D. Andrews on 31 Mar 2010 15:15 "James D. Andrews" <jamesdandrews(a)att.net> wrote in message news:hoqvo1$j7m$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... > I'm coming across so much conflicting information out there with more > details than I need. I'm not looking for NTFS vs. FAT32 pros & cons. > > Simply put: What is the maximum HDD size FAT32 can handle? If I get a > 500GB-1TB drive, must I use NTFS? > > (Win XP) > > Thanks > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- The answer I was looking for (Thanks, Paul for a good link) was 127.5Gb. I'm looking at a 160Gb Hard Drive only showing 127Gb. It's FAT32. I figured FAT 32 limitations were the problem, but my searches kept coming up with conflicting or confusing information. Unfortunately, I don't have a spare HDD around (of adequate size) to do a full backup before converting. My own HDD is near capacity so I can't use mine. Hmmm. I'll figure something out. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Paul on 31 Mar 2010 18:30 James D. Andrews wrote: > "James D. Andrews" <jamesdandrews(a)att.net> wrote in message > news:hoqvo1$j7m$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... >> I'm coming across so much conflicting information out there with more >> details than I need. I'm not looking for NTFS vs. FAT32 pros & cons. >> >> Simply put: What is the maximum HDD size FAT32 can handle? If I get a >> 500GB-1TB drive, must I use NTFS? >> >> (Win XP) >> >> Thanks >> >> >> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- > > > The answer I was looking for (Thanks, Paul for a good link) was 127.5Gb. > > I'm looking at a 160Gb Hard Drive only showing 127Gb. It's FAT32. I figured > FAT 32 limitations were the problem, but my searches kept coming up with > conflicting or confusing information. > > Unfortunately, I don't have a spare HDD around (of adequate size) to do a > full backup before converting. My own HDD is near capacity so I can't use > mine. Hmmm. I'll figure something out. > If you're having a problem creating a partition (doesn't matter what file system) of larger than 128/137 GB, that is a "48 bit LBA" problem. That won't be fixed by the fat32formatter program. Seagate wrote a document about the change, and an archived copy is available here. http://web.archive.org/web/20070121085230/http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/tp/137gb.pdf I had a problem like that, with my Win2K install. It wasn't using the latest Service Pack, and it refused to put a partition larger than the 128/137GB limit on a 160GB disk. Once I patched the Win2K OS to SP4, I could use the whole disk. That is more likely to be seen on an IDE drive, with some older hardware. There are motherboards, before 2003, that aren't ready for 48 bit LBA (i.e. booting). To get around the problem, a PCI IDE card may help. The ones for sale now, are likely compatible with ATA/ATAPI 6 or later, and suitable for larger disks. See the table near the bottom of this page, for details of when 48bit LBA hit the standards. By buying an IDE card with Ultra133 interfaces (an ATA/ATAPI 7 feature), that helps ensure the card covers 48 bit LBA as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATA/ATAPI The mechanics of 28 bit LBA versus 48 bit LBA, is shown in a proposal for it here. The registers are "double pumped", and by writing two sets of numbers to the registers (keeping the first set in temporary storage), they're able to use the original sized register space, but with more room for larger addresses. For things like controller cards, with pseudo-SCSI software interfaces, that software interface hides the details, and makes it possible to support larger disks, without any additional effort from the user. On hardware that uses a default OS driver for the disk interface, that is where Service Packs come in. http://www.t10.org/t13/technical/e00101r6.pdf Paul
From: Jeff Strickland on 31 Mar 2010 20:48
"James D. Andrews" <jamesdandrews(a)att.net> wrote in message news:hp071l$1cjd$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... > > "James D. Andrews" <jamesdandrews(a)att.net> wrote in message > news:hoqvo1$j7m$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... >> I'm coming across so much conflicting information out there with more >> details than I need. I'm not looking for NTFS vs. FAT32 pros & cons. >> >> Simply put: What is the maximum HDD size FAT32 can handle? If I get a >> 500GB-1TB drive, must I use NTFS? >> >> (Win XP) >> >> Thanks >> >> >> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- > > > The answer I was looking for (Thanks, Paul for a good link) was 127.5Gb. > > I'm looking at a 160Gb Hard Drive only showing 127Gb. It's FAT32. I > figured FAT 32 limitations were the problem, but my searches kept coming > up with conflicting or confusing information. > > Unfortunately, I don't have a spare HDD around (of adequate size) to do a > full backup before converting. My own HDD is near capacity so I can't use > mine. Hmmm. I'll figure something out. > The new drive will also format (NTFS) to the max of 137G, but once the initial partition is created, then format the remainder of the drive in one huge chunk. I have a 640G drive that formatted to 137G Drive C, and 503G Drive D. Don't wig-out about the numbers and the apparent lack of adding up. This happens because of the way they measure a byte. Think of New Math -- the result doesn't matter, just the process used to get there. New Math explains why the capacity is expressed as 137,433,751,552 bytes (127GB), and the Used Space and the Free Space can be added together to get the sum of 127.9GB. Install the new drive, format C to 137GB, and D to whatever is left over, then set the old HDD to be a Slave (you have to move the jumper) and copy your documents to the new drive, then wait a week or so to be sure you have all of the stuff you want, then reformat the old drive to wipe it clean. At the end of all of this, will boot to the new Drive C, have a partition for Drive D, and your old HDD set as an entirely different storage space, Drive E. Actually, the Drive E is dependent upon whether or not the drive letter is assigned already, or not. If it is assigned, then the old HDD will take the next available letter that hasn't been assigned. |