Fat32 partition size limit (OT in uk.d-i-y)

I use mainly XP on FAT32. NTFS seems to be more
efficient and it can handle files over 4 GB, so I keep
one NTFS partition for large file storage. XP-FAT32
has no trouble accessing the NTFS partition. The reason
I don't go with all NTFS is because user file restrictions
are nothing more than a nuisance complication for my
purposes. But those complications are relevant only
if the OS running is NTFS. In that case the FAT32
partitions are handy for their inability to makr files with
restrictions.

Similarly, when I've dabbled with Linux I like to keep
all files on FAT32 partitions, to escape the problems of
Linux file restrictions.

There should be a way to simply shut off all of that,
but unfortunately there isn't. Both systems are designed
for commercial use with multiple users and "untrusted
access" being commonplace.


"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
| Just (today) bought a Verbatim 1TB USB-3[1] external drive for general
| backup purposes, plus transferring data between computers - all Windoze,
| but a mixture of XP, W7-32bit and W7-64bit.
|
| It came formatted as Fat32, and there appears to be a single partition
| occupying the whole of its 1TB capacity.
|
| However, the on-disk manual which came with it seems to suggest that
| Fat32 partitions are limited to a maximum of 32GB. I know that to be
| untrue because I've got a 64GB thumb drive which is formatted as Fat32 -
| and that's definitely got more than 32GB of data on it. Some sources
| seem to suggest that the default Windoze format command cannot format
| more than 32GB at a time in Fat32 but there are third-party alternatives
| which can.
|
| Can anyone shed any light on this please?
|
| The manual suggests that users may want to create multiple partitions on
| the disk - possibly a mixture of Fat32 (for maximum transportability)
| and NTFS (for fewer size - presumably both partition size *and* file
| size - limitations). If I understand it correctly, it's telling me to
| delete the existing partition - so the whole thing becomes unallocated
| space - and then create the required new partitions. Questions:
| a) is this necessary?
| b) if I delete the existing partition, presumably the documents and
| software which came on the disk will be lost unless I copy it all
| elsewhere first?
| c) If I create multiple partitions (say, 1 fat32 primary, 1 Extended -
| containing several NTFS logical partitions) and give each one a drive
| letter, will the drive letters change depending on which system it's
| connected to at any one time - or do I need to choose drive letters
| which won't conflict with those in use on *any* of the systems to which
| I will connect it?
| d) if I back up my operating systems, using something like Paragon
| Rescue & Backup software (which is stand-alone, and boots from a CD)
| will that software be able to see all the partitions? [My current
| thoughts are that I will use a separate partition for each system I'm
| backing up - so that each one is self-contained].
|
| I think I know broadly what I want to achieve, but I feel that I need to
| understand all the issues before starting to muck about with this new
disk.
|
| Any constructive comments will be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
| [1] It's backwards compatible with USB-2, which is how I shall be using
| it - in the short term, at any rate.
| --
| Cheers,
| Roger
| ____________
| Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
| checked.

Roger Mills wrote:

However, the on-disk manual which came with it seems to suggest that
Fat32 partitions are limited to a maximum of 32GB.

The maximum size for a FAT32 partition is something like 8TB. But
FAT32 is not well suited for such huge partitions, NTFS works much
better. Because of that, Windows systems that can use NTFS will not
create a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB.

This does not mean that a huge FAT32 partition can't be used with
WinNT or Vista or later. It just means that tools included with the OS
won't create such a partition. If you have a third-party tool to
create a huge FAT32 partition, your Windows system will have no
problem using it.

--
Tim Slattery
tim at risingdove dot com

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:44:58 -0400, Big Al wrote:

If you want NTFS and don't want to lose the data just convert the format:


At the command prompt, type the following, where drive letter is the
drive that you want to convert:
convert drive letter: /fs:ntfs
For example, type the following command to convert drive E to NTFS:
convert e: /fs:ntfs

See this for additional info.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307881


And especially read here for additional info:
http://aumha.org/win5/a/ntfscvt.htm

It's an old web page, but as far as I know, it's still correct.

Also note that conversion is a big step, affecting everything on your
drive. When you take such a big step, no matter how unlikely, it is
always possible that something could go wrong. For that reason, it's
prudent to make sure you have a backup of anything you can't afford to
lose before beginning.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:33:51 -0400
"Mayayana" wrote:

Similarly, when I've dabbled with Linux I like to keep
all files on FAT32 partitions, to escape the problems of
Linux file restrictions.

What restrictions are you referring to? Linux supports
around 19 different file systems.

--
Wildman GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:52:44 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Roger Mills wrote

[My current thoughts are that I will use a separate partition for each
system I'm backing up - so that each one is self-contained].

That isnt a great approach because the size of the backup varys

Well, depending on whether you do clones or images,

The size of the backup does vary with both approaches.

and whether compression is on if you do clones,

You'd be mad not to with more than one clone on the drive.

but on the whole, yes.

over time so you can end up with the free space scattered over the
partitions.

Its better to have a single partition and specify the
system its the backup of using the file name instead.

That way you don't have to fart around changing the partition sizes over
time and the free space doesn't get scattered over the partitions.

Why is scattered free space a problem ...

You end up with less space to write another backup to.

Wrong! Oh, so _very_ wrong!

Fragmentation only effects read/write performance, not space
utilisation.


Yeah, particularly given that once you have it partitioned
and have the backup files on it, its not that easy to repartition
the drive WHEN you discover you got the partition size wrong.

... except that (-:! [_Could_ be that Roger intends to make partitions the
same size as the systems being backed.]

It makes more sense to compress the clone so you can get more on the drive.

If the cloning software doesn't already create compressed images
(most do), compression can give impressive image file size reductions
on 'content free' images (but you may need to use a secure erase tool
to 'zero out' the free allocation units on the original disk volume(s)
before creating the image(s)).
--
J B Good

On 31/10/2014 16:07, Johny B Good wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:52:44 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver wrote


Why is scattered free space a problem ...

You end up with less space to write another backup to.

Wrong! Oh, so _very_ wrong!

Fragmentation only effects read/write performance, not space
utilisation.


I don't think he was talking about fragmentation - but rather about
having lots of small free spaces distributed across multiple partitions.
I'm not sure that it's a problem in my case, but it would in some cases
reduce the available space when working within a particular partition.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

Wildman wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:33:51 -0400
"Mayayana" wrote:

Similarly, when I've dabbled with Linux I like to keep
all files on FAT32 partitions, to escape the problems of
Linux file restrictions.

What restrictions are you referring to? Linux supports
around 19 different file systems.

Mayayana is referring to the file permissions model (755, 644 etc).

Linux doesn't enforce those for NTFS, at least not yet. Which makes
Linux excellent for working around a file permissions problem visible
in Windows.

And EXT2 on Linux, would support file permissions in similar
ways to NTFS under Windows. The difference is, the permissions
model for NTFS just never "clicked" with me, leaving me permanently
unable to explain it thoroughly to others. I can only figure out
the simplest of things on NTFS. (Like the read-only folder bit
being overloaded as a folder customization flag.) If you read
descriptions of this stuff up to the domain level, you're left
speechless.

An example of an Access Control List fro Vista. Presumably
this means something, but I'll "wait for the movie to come out" :-)
See, my eyes are starting to glaze over already...

D:PAI
(A;;FA;;;BA)
(A;OICIIO;GA;;;BA)
(A;;FA;;;SY)
(A;OICIIO;GA;;;SY)
(A;OICI;0x1200a9;;;BU)
(A;OICIIO;SDGXGWGR;;;AU)
(A;;LC;;;AU)

Paul

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:23:03 +0000, Roger Mills
wrote:

On 31/10/2014 16:07, Johny B Good wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:52:44 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver wrote


Why is scattered free space a problem ...

You end up with less space to write another backup to.

Wrong! Oh, so _very_ wrong!

Fragmentation only effects read/write performance, not space
utilisation.


I don't think he was talking about fragmentation - but rather about
having lots of small free spaces distributed across multiple partitions.
I'm not sure that it's a problem in my case, but it would in some cases
reduce the available space when working within a particular partition.

Yeah, you're right. I should have read it more carefully. It looked
at first glance like a reference to fragmentation. It would seem I owe
Rodders an apology. :-(

Splitting a large HDD up into 2 or 3 partitions on a PC is well worth
doing, whether the OS is windows or a *nix distro, simply to ease
maintenance and reduce fragmentation induced performance fade
(particularly in a windows setup due to endless update file churn) but
tends to be pointless on additional HDDs or external backup drives
unless there is some specific requirement.

In this case, there really doesn't seem to any 'special requirement'
to split the drive into more than 1 partition space since the only
OSes it needs to work with can all access NTFS disk volumes anyway.

Using seperate file folders to keep various backup groups seperated
is perfectly adequate for this task without the risk of running out of
space in one partition whilst another goes underutilsed.
--
J B Good

On 30/10/2014 21:38, Roger Mills wrote:
Just (today) bought a Verbatim 1TB USB-3[1] external drive for general
backup purposes, plus transferring data between computers - all Windoze,
but a mixture of XP, W7-32bit and W7-64bit.

Just to keep the LInux people happy, there's a thing called

http://www.ext2fsd.com/

which gives you EXT3 and 4 partitions read-write from Windows. It's
handy for me because my PVR doesn't like big Fat32 partitions.

Andy

| What restrictions are you referring to? Linux supports
| around 19 different file systems.
|
| Mayayana is referring to the file permissions model (755, 644 etc).
|
Yes. Using Linux partions -- ext* -- for data can
result in complications, so I just use FAT32.

| And EXT2 on Linux, would support file permissions in similar
| ways to NTFS under Windows. The difference is, the permissions
| model for NTFS just never "clicked" with me, leaving me permanently
| unable to explain it thoroughly to others. I can only figure out
| the simplest of things on NTFS. (Like the read-only folder bit
| being overloaded as a folder customization flag.) If you read
| descriptions of this stuff up to the domain level, you're left
| speechless.

The API code to deal with it is also "not to be believed".
I remember once seeing a humorous comparison of the steps
required in Windows vs Linux. Security through abstruseness.

In message , Tim Slattery
writes:
Roger Mills wrote:

However, the on-disk manual which came with it seems to suggest that
Fat32 partitions are limited to a maximum of 32GB.

The maximum size for a FAT32 partition is something like 8TB. But
FAT32 is not well suited for such huge partitions, NTFS works much
better.

It may work better in the handling of sectors, and possibly the
journalling (I'm still not convinced about those); it's the permissions
aspect that really bugs some of us. Now, if there was a protocol that
Windows understood that had the (claimed) advantages of NTFS, or it were
possible to use NTFS but turn permission control off, ... but as another
has said, you can't )-:.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'm very peachable, if people know how to peach" - Sir David Attenborough (on
being asked if he was tired of being described as impeachable), on Desert
Island Discs, 2012-1-29.

On 31/10/2014 19:31, Johny B Good wrote:

Splitting a large HDD up into 2 or 3 partitions on a PC is well worth
doing, whether the OS is windows or a *nix distro, simply to ease
maintenance and reduce fragmentation induced performance fade
(particularly in a windows setup due to endless update file churn) but
tends to be pointless on additional HDDs or external backup drives
unless there is some specific requirement.


My OP concerns a large back-up disk. My rationale for splitting it into
a number of partitions is to reduce the risk of losing *all* my data if
one partition gets corrupted. I don't know whether that's valid or not.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

| Yes. Using Linux partions -- ext* -- for data can
| result in complications, so I just use FAT32.
|
| Jesus, but that's dumb.
|

In 4 words you've managed to swear and use dubious
syntax, all while not actually saying anything. Care to
try again? Why not go for broke and write a complete
sentence or two. That is, if you can spare the time.

If you mean that ext* is superior to FAT32,
it's not in my usage. I'm not doing a lot of intensive
file operations. But ext* can cause problems if I save
a file while logged on as one user and then try to access
it again later while logged on as another. It's built-in
"security" that can't be turned off. Ditto for NTFS.
Thus, FAT32 is a good solution for both Linux and
Windows.

If you mean it's dumb to have data partitions, I
can only say that it works for my backup needs.
I see no reason to allow data to share in the risk
of a possible unbootable OS. That risk simply isn't
necessary.
To put everything in one partition is like having a
tractor trailer truck that doesn't allow the cab to be
separated from the trailer, so that something as
simple as a leaky radiator could end up spoiling an
entire load of perishable product.

Mayayana wrote

To put everything in one partition is like having
a tractor trailer truck that doesn't allow the cab
to be separated from the trailer,

Nothing like in fact.

so that something as simple as a leaky radiator could
end up spoiling an entire load of perishable product.

It doesn’t work like that with partitions that use a decent file system.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:29:35 +0000, Roger Mills wrote:

On 31/10/2014 19:31, Johny B Good wrote:

Splitting a large HDD up into 2 or 3 partitions on a PC is well worth
doing, whether the OS is windows or a *nix distro, simply to ease
maintenance and reduce fragmentation induced performance fade
(particularly in a windows setup due to endless update file churn) but
tends to be pointless on additional HDDs or external backup drives
unless there is some specific requirement.


My OP concerns a large back-up disk. My rationale for splitting it into
a number of partitions is to reduce the risk of losing *all* my data if
one partition gets corrupted. I don't know whether that's valid or not.

I find it easier to believe a whole disk would die than that a single
partition would, but I don't know enough to bet money on that.

However, my favored policy is to back up alternately to two different
drives, and have each connected only while its backup is in process.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)