On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Tuesday 2008-07-22 at 19:33 -0400, Greg Freemyer wrote:
the FAT's themselves need to be resident in memory all at once to maintain consistency? That sorta limits how big volumes might get.
Don't think so. I have not noticed our large drives being particularly slow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_allocation_table#FAT32
] Windows 2000 and Windows XP can read and write to FAT32 file systems of ] any size, but the format program included in Windows 2000 and higher ] can only create FAT32 file systems of 32 GB or less. This limitation is ] by design and according to Microsoft was imposed because many tasks on ] a very large FAT32 file system become slow and inefficient.[12][16] ] This limitation can be bypassed by using third-party formatting ] utilities or by using the built-in FORMAT.EXE command-line ] utility.[17][18]
...
We still use FAT as our open standard. With big files we break them apart via split. Re-assemble with cat.
Our industry (Computer Forenisics) actually has lots of tools that work with the split files since the need to so great.
Now, I wonder why the 4 GiB file size limit. The wikipedia says:
] The maximum possible size for a file on a FAT32 volume is 4 GB minus 1 ] "null" byte (232−1 bytes). Video applications, large databases, and ] some other software easily exceed this limit. Larger files require ] another formatting type such as HFS+ or NTFS. Until mid-2006, those who ] run dual boot systems or who move external data drives between ] computers with different operating systems had little choice but to ] stick with FAT32. Since then, full support for NTFS has become ] available in Linux and many other operating systems, by installing the ] FUSE library (on Linux) together with the NTFS-3G driver. Data exchange ] is also possible between Windows and Linux by using the Linux-native ] ext2 or ext3 file systems through the use of external drivers for ] Windows, such as ext2 IFS; however, Windows cannot boot from ext2 or ] ext3 partitions.
But just now I can't think what's the technical reason for this limit :-?
If it were a cluster count limit (per file), the size limit would vary with cluster size...
There is an exFAT format that allows 2^64 bytes per file. I didn't know of that filesystem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT
- -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIhoN6tTMYHG2NR9URArbZAJ43MZtDgSXeyNPn/fOu6bxXL8oUHwCfW0w4 kUdwdXS9sR8JRvVMh5w8OqU= =7dV7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Didn't OpenSuse11 change one of the properties of ext3 so that now it can't be mounted under Windows using the available tools? I think it was 256byte inodes or something like that, I'm not an expert on filesystems... Also, are there any programs under development that will allow ext4 access from Windows? (I realized ext4 itself is still under development). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org