Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 29351	2003-01-17 10:07:00	Hard drive size	rev2000 (3021)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
114700	2003-01-20 08:06:00	To clear up the seeming misunderstanding about the fat32 size limit Yes: you can partition hard drives of almost any size to fat32 - I run an 80Gb as one partition with fat32, and another 40Gb. This was done with fdisk and format (dos tools). What actually happens is the cluster size changes. A smaller drive will have smaller clusters, and a larger drive, larger clusters. There is an upper limit, but I am not sure what it is. This effect can be seen by looking at the file properties from within windows. There is a file size reading and a size on disk. A file cannot take up part of one cluster - it must use the whole cluster. So a 200 byte file will use one cluster. My 80Gb drive shows the size on disk as 32Kb while my 40Gb drive shows it as 16Kb. This is the cluster size. The reason that some books/sites show fat32 size limits is because some OS's limit the max cluster size when formatting. Like winXP for example - It will not format either of my drives as fat32 - hence the use of dos tools, but it will run from them with no problems. The only obvious factor is wasted disk space. The difference between the 200 bytes and the 32Kb is all unusable on the drive! In answer to the original query, just check that the bios date is after 98/99 some time and you should be OK with any size, or get some sort of drive overlay from the manufacturer. Also, unless you really need to partition the drive, don't. This is because is slows down access time - esp if you need to access both partitions at the same time. The hard drive heads need to constantly seek from one part of the disk to the other - which significantly adds to load and read times.... Craig.	craig_b (2740)
114701	2003-01-20 19:23:00	craig_b, i'm a little confused as 2 of the things you said seem to contridict. >A smaller drive will have smaller clusters, and a larger drive, larger clusters. >A file cannot take up part of one cluster - it must use the whole cluster. So a 200 byte file will use one cluster >The only obvious factor is wasted disk space This seems a reason to partition, yet you also say >Also, unless you really need to partition the drive, don't. ?:| .Clueless	Clueless (181)
114702	2003-01-20 23:37:00	Clueless - for info on the case for partitioning try this page - www.pcguide.com The pcguide site is a great info site - you might like to sniff around it. Some of the gen could do with updating but essentially holds true nevertheless.	Robin S_ (86)
114703	2003-01-21 03:35:00	clueless: The main reason i say not to partition (please note this is only my view, and there are perfectly valid reasons for partitioning) is that typically people will partition their drive into one space for windows, another for apps, and maybe another for storage. With this scenario, an app gets loaded off the second partition, but needs some data from the windows system - say some dll's or something, or maybe to load up the swap file with data. Every time something from a different partition to where the heads currently are takes time to access. From experience, I used to partition into a windows and apps partition, and one for my music collection. I did this because of the 8Gb limit of my old motherboard. I found that access time increased through the roof because of the constant reads coming from the music partition, and apps like photoshop would take 3-4 times as long to load as the hdd's heads skipped about. I could tell it was the skipping from one partition to the next as my old drive was quite noisy, and the noise of the read/write action, and the head movement action were quite different. Maybe if you were to have say an active and a dormant partition, ie all apps/windows/music whatever on one partition, and backups and archives on another it could be quite feasible i don't know. Hope that clears up my points... Craig.	craig_b (2740)
114704	2003-01-21 04:29:00	My favourate has always been cut the disk up into 1/System. (including apps) 2/Stuff. All the docos, mp3s, vids etc 3/Shared. The area where i might place stuff to be shared over the internet, or a private network The therie being, if things get really messy, i can just bulldoze c:/ and set the whole damn thing up from scratch. It also makes it much simpler to define what will be shared, particually if someone else is using it Linux is of course set up resonably similarly with the /home partition that contains everything that i would want to keep in the event of demolition/rebuild. .CLueless	Clueless (181)
114705	2003-01-21 04:39:00	Fair enough - i suppose it really is just personal preference. I do a similar thing but with physical drives - i have one for windows and all apps and games - active stuff and another for all my music/vids/movies and backups like hdd images and downloaded installers - passive stuff. I think that the physical hard disks is better method - plus I was never much good at keeping the partitions seperate - esp the windows/apps seperation because a lot of my apps need to be installed on the windows drive... so my partitions ended up so disorganised and scattered I gave up the whole idea quite quickly... :) Craig.	craig_b (2740)
114706	2003-01-21 22:34:00	>With this scenario, an app gets loaded off the second partition, but needs some data from the windows system - say some dll's or something, or maybe to load up the swap file with data. Every time something from a different partition to where the heads currently are takes time to access correct. you can loose a little bit in speed, exspecially if you make the windows partition far to big(you have a lot of spare space on the fast part of the disk). however i think your forgotten a little bit here. if you use the whole drive as one you can quite easly end up with your program at the end of the drive causeing the same probem as with the partitions. defrag will help put the program into a faster position but that all depends on how often it gets used and defraging a 60 gig disk takes ages. partitioning makes it easier to keep things organised IF you know how to use it. (not to mention you can format c: without loseing your games and mp3's)	tweak'e (174)
114707	2003-01-22 00:03:00	Another very interesting thread. :-) Was looking at Chill's Partitioning FAQ the other day and after reading this thread I feel that the FAQ could be expanded to include the kind of info given here. It would be very helpful if the FAQ had advice on the best way to have one's partitions -- the methods and their pros and cons laid out so people can decide for themselves what to do. I've never come across the sort of information that tweak'e and Craig has given and would very much have appreciated it a couple of months ago. I'm sure it would be very useful to others as well. It would be an easy task to copy and paste the information Craig has posted here, but please tweak'e, can you run up a nice little addendum to Chill's partitioning FAQ for us? :-) :-)	Susan B (19)
114708	2003-01-23 07:35:00	> I use win98 (1st edn) with 80gb Seagate in 2x40gb partitions .... rugila: What did you use to partition your 80gb HDD? If it was FDISK did you get a warning of some sort regarding the drive not being accessible to other Windows versions or something like that? (damn... wish I had written that message down now :-() I wanted to have two partitions with my Win98 (1st edn) 6gb drive but got cold feet when that message came up so left it as one.	Susan B (19)
114709	2003-01-23 09:06:00	Woooo ... I was beginning to think I was the only person in the world who doesn't partition. Can someone tell me: If an HD is partitioned into say, Windows / Apps / Docs, what's the point of being able to bulldoze a Windows partition when that also includes the registry. Don't you then have to reinstall your apps to get the appropriate registry keys back?	antmannz (28)
1 2 3