[log in to unmask] writes:

Re: Multiple partitions to one drive R necessary if...

On 22 Sep 2001, at 2:22, Tomas Santos wrote:

> You Consider that: the larger the partition, the bigger the
> cluster!
>
> By partitioning a large disk you reduce the cluster size, thus for
> a 182 bytes shortcut to NotePad, the file would use a smaller amt
> of space, since a 1 byte or 32000  bytes file will use the same
> amt of clusters(1 in this case). That's an awful lot of wasted
> space when you start adding it up, no?.
>
> Inconsequential nowadays, when in comparison to $145.00 for a 2.1
> Gig HDD in '98 & $45.00 for a 15 Gig today, eh?
>
> Guess you don't have to partition; waste makes haste!<g> MHO &
> logical observation.
>
> tomas santos [log in to unmask]

  All very true -- in the world of FAT16.  FAT32 allows for so many
more clusters per partition that cluster size is able to stay quite
small.  (NTFS, which I prefer (especially in a business environment)
uses an alternate allocation scheme so that cluster size is not an issue
David Gillett


Reply:
I've often gained from the expositions on this list, my fellow listers, but irregardless of wheteher you've partitioned using FAT16 or FAT32 or NTFS, the smaller the disk size the smaller the cluster. It's only logical!

On POST by means of my BIOS & DEL I can choose whether to boot from Disk #0 or # 1, etc.

I have 1 PC with 2 HDDs, #0 a 17.3GB partitioned into C: thru H:. I also have disk #1 on the same PC, a 10.7 GB partitioned into C: & D:.

In disk #0 C: is FAT 32 with a 7.99GB capacity, the balance of the disk is apportioned to FAT16. The cluster size for C: = 4096 bytes in this instance.

In disk #1 C: is FAT 32 with 7.02 GB capacity & the balance of the disk is D: and it is a FAT16 partition also. In this instance the cluster size for C: = 8092 bytes, proportionate to the size of the disk in comparison to disk #0.

Obvious logical conclusion, as I previously stated, is that the cluster size irregardless of the type of the partition format(FAT 16 or 32 or 64) is proportionate to the size of the partition of the disk. Thus the reason for partitioning is to reduce the size of the cluster.

In my #0 disk's C: partition, the shortcut to COP 2.2 by Plato is 967 bytes in size, or 1 cluster equaling 4096 bytes.

In my #1 disk's C: partition, the same shortcut continues to have the same properties(967 bytes) and 1 cluster used to save it, but in this case it is of 8092 bytes. In my setup I use Disk #1 as a backkup & exact clone of Disk #0.

In my 2nd PC with a 40 GB unpartitioned HDD, the shortcut to COP 2.2 by Plato is 967 bytes & it of course takes up 1 cluster of FAT 32 format also, with a capacity of 32768 bytes.

After rethinking this matter I'm sure all will agree waste is due to haste for partitioning in any FAT format will reduce the cluster size & lead to us not into the temptation of wasting disk space.

If need be, I stand to be corrected & I respectfully expose my reasoning behind this thread.

tomas santos  [log in to unmask]


__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

        The NOSPIN Group provides a monthly newsletter with great
       tips, information and ideas: NOSPIN-L, The NOSPIN Magazine
           Visit our web site to signup: http://freepctech.com