PCBUILD Archives

Personal Computer Hardware discussion List

PCBUILD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
PCBUILD - Personal Computer Hardware discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:11:44 -0700
Reply-To:
PCBUILD - Personal Computer Hardware discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Subject:
From:
Dave Gillett <[log in to unmask]>
Content-transfer-encoding:
7BIT
In-Reply-To:
Organization:
General Magic
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
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]>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2