Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:11:44 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7BIT |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Organization: |
General Magic |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 27 Jul 99, at 11:22, Uzi Paz wrote:
> On my win95a (there is no Hebrew enabled Win95b) one of the reasons
> of making smaller partitions was to make block size small so that there
> will be no much wasted space due to the fact that each file must use
> integer number of blocks.
>
> With the 32bit FAT that I'm going to use in w98, is block size still a
> factor?
WIth the 16-bit FAT, block sizes had to go up with larger partitions
because the number of blocks in a partition was limited to 64K (16 bits).
With the 32-bit FAT, the maximum number of blocks in a partition is 4G (32
bits); we are probably at least a decade away from consumer drives that would
need to increase block size to maintain a single partition.
I think FAT32 volumes *can* actually have a couple of different block
sizes, and Partition Magic may let you specify which one to use. But it's
much less of an issue than it was with FAT16, so I don't think I'd bother
worrying about it.
David G
PCBUILD's List Owner's:
Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]>
Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]>
|
|
|