Tomas missed the important point in David's statement. The reason that a
cluster size increases as disk size increases is that the number of clusters
permitted is limited. Under FAT16, the limit is relatively low. Going to
FAT32 greatly increases the number of clusters permitted, hence the cluster
size can remain small even for a large partition.

As David also noted, NTFS uses a more advanced directory structure where
cluster size is not even an issue.

Peter Shkabara
____________________________
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
http://gocolumbia.org/pesh <http://gocolumbia.org/shkabarap>

-----Original Message-----
David Gillett wrote:
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

tomas santos  [log in to unmask] wrote:
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.
...
If need be, I stand to be corrected & I respectfully expose my reasoning
behind this thread.

         PCBUILD maintains hundreds of useful files for download
                     visit our download web page at:
                  http://freepctech.com/downloads.shtml