PCBUILD Archives

Personal Computer Hardware discussion List

PCBUILD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Tim Lider <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
PCBUILD - Personal Computer Hardware discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 24 Jun 1998 08:51:00 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
Hello Jeffrey Delzer, at 10:43 PM 6/23/98 -0500 you wrote:

>>   In my experience I would go with one large partition. Plus with FAT-32 a
>> 14GB partition would still have a 4kB cluster size.

>I've been led to believe that cluster size changes from 4K to 8K (?) as
>you go up past 8GB partition size. What's the scoop?

According to Microsoft Tech Support: Article Q155003

FAT32 uses smaller clusters (that is, 4K clusters for drives up to 8 GB in
size), resulting in 10 to 15 percent more efficient use of disk space
relative to large FAT16 drives.

NOTE: I believe they have not tested this completely sine this is limited to
the boot partition may not be larger then 7.8 GB due to hardware
limitations of INT13.

  Current technology (Enhanced INT13) supports hard drives over 7.8GB hard
drives.

  Also I maybe incorrect. I set the hard drive up for a customer and I was
even suprised that the drive went all the way out.

Information from:

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/ARTICLES/Q154/9/97.asp?PR=CHS&FR=0&A
=T&T=B&S=F&

Regards,



Tim Lider
Advanced Data Solutions              ICQ: 7562541
Web Site: http://www.adv-data.com E-Mail: Mailto:[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2