Let's see, one sector = 512 bytes so that dictates a table:

sectors/  cluster    FAT12    FAT16    FAT32
cluster   size

   1         512       2 MB    32 MB     2 GB
   2        1 KB       4 MB    64 MB     4 GB
   4        2 KB       8 MB   128 MB     8 GB
   8        4 KB      16 MB   256 MB    16 GB
  16        8 KB      32 MB   512 MB    32 GB
  32       16 KB       N/A      1 GB    64 GB
  64       32 KB       N/A      2 GB   128 GB
 128       64 KB       N/A     *4 GB   256 GB

* 4 GB FAT16 partitions are supported only by NT/2000.

  So, on the one hand:  yes, it is true that a larger partition size
can require a larger cluster size, and hence more wasted space.
  But on the other hand, increasing the partition size from 1 GB to 2
GB under FAT16 increases the cluster size from 16K to 32K, whereas in
your samples partitions which are 7~8 GB are using clusters that are
only 4~8K.  (As we can see from the table, these clusters are
actually larger than theoretically necessary, but the 4K (.00005%)
difference is a much tinier portion of the drive than the 16K (.8%)
difference FAT16 would introduce.)

Dave Gillett


On 23 Sep 2001, at 9:40, Tomas Santos wrote:

> [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
>

        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