Computer Hope
Software => Computer software => Topic started by: nymph4 on September 02, 2008, 01:21:28 PM
-
Am I right in that FAT 16 can only support up to a 2. GB Hard Drive?
And FAT 32 Can support up to a 2 TB Hard Drive?
I get two diferant thoughts on this on the net.
-
The Max. volume size for FAT16 is 2GB
The Max. volume size for FAT32 is 32GB
The Max. volume size for NTFS is 2TB
This is how I understand it , but i'm still studying for my A+, I just hope a guru confirms this.
-
Ok here it goes??
Every time I look on the NET for information about FAT 16 FAT 32 I get two diferant things?
I never get the right information does anyone know of a gook web site that will tell me things like?
How many Cluster are it FAT 16 32
What the MAX Cluster Size is for FAT 16 32
What OS support what FAT
And all good ods and ends like that??
-
Google again comes up trumps. Following is an extract from this (http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/file/partSizes.html) page which is part of this (http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/file/fat.html) site.
# FAT12: The oldest type of FAT uses a 12-bit binary number to hold the cluster number. A volume formatted using FAT12 can hold a maximum of 4,086 clusters, which is 2^12 minus a few values (to allow for reserved values to be used in the FAT). FAT12 is therefore most suitable for smaller volumes, and is used on floppy disks and hard disk partitions smaller than about 16 MB.
# FAT16: The FAT used for most hard disk partitions uses a 16-bit binary number to hold cluster numbers. When you see someone refer to a "FAT" volume generically, they are usually referring to FAT16, because it is the de facto standard for hard disks. A volume using FAT16 can hold a maximum of 65,526 clusters, which is 2^16 less a few values (again for reserved values in the FAT). FAT16 is used for hard disk volumes ranging in size from 16 MB to 2,048 MB.
# FAT32: The newest FAT type, FAT32 is supported by Windows 95's OEM SR2 release, as well as Windows 98. FAT32 uses a 28-bit binary cluster number--not 32, because 4 of the 32 bits are "reserved". 28 bits is still enough to permit ridiculously huge volumes--FAT32 can theoretically handle volumes with over 268 million clusters, and will support (theoretically) drives up to 2 TB in size. However to do this the size of the FAT grows very large.
Then there's this (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc738068.aspx) one with a table showing OS/FAT compatibility.
-
OK I think I know ware I am geting lost on FAT 16 and FAT 32?
If you use FAT 16 on a Big or Small Hard Drive it must cover the whole Hard Drive with Cluters RIGHT???
So if you have a small Hard Drive it will not be able to put 65,526 Cluters because it will not be able to fit them all on the Hard Drive RIGHT???
So it will put down a diferant number of Clusters but it still must cover the whole Hard Drive RIGHT???
-
So if you have a small Hard Drive it will not be able to put 65,526 Cluters because it will not be able to fit them all on the Hard Drive RIGHT???
No, the cluster number remains the same but the cluster size diminishes. See the table here (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/67321/EN-US/) and note how the cluster size increases as the disk size also increases.
If you use FAT 16 on a Big or Small Hard Drive it must cover the whole Hard Drive with Cluters RIGHT???
You haven't defined what you consider to be Big or Small. Fat16 is not supported (cannot be used) on disks (partitions) larger than 2gb (see here (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/118335)) and see my reply to your post here. (http://www.computerhope.com/forum/index.php?action=post;msg=435737;topic=66949.0;sesc=a7966170520104ec1569a39ea8ec7133)
-
What I ment is this.
If you use FAT 16 on a Hard Drive that is 2,048 M.B.
It will put 65,526 Clusters down and every Cluster will be 32 kB
Now what I don't get is if the Hard Drive is 720 M.B. it will put down less Clusters.
And the Cluster size will not be 32 kB
Now I do get that the max number of Cluster is 65,526 not that it will put that many on every Hard Drive.
This it what I ment??
-
The cluster size will always be 32kb......
Do the math to find out how many clusters will be created on any size drive...
-
FAT16.
For a logical drive of 720mb the cluster size will be 16k not 32k
The table below is extracted from kb67321 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/67321/EN-US/)
Drive Size FAT Type Sectors Cluster
(logical volume) Per Cluster Size
---------------- -------- ----------- -------
0 MB - 15 MB 12-bit 8 4K
16 MB - 127 MB 16-bit 4 2K
128 MB - 255 MB 16-bit 8 4K
256 MB - 511 MB 16-bit 16 8K
512 MB - 1023 MB 16-bit 32 16K
1024 MB - 2047 MB 16-bit 64 32K
No, the cluster number remains the same but the cluster size diminishes.
OOPSIE, I boobed on that statement, the cluster number obviously must also diminish. Doing the math shows that on a 720mb logical drive with a cluster size of 16k there will be approx 45,000 clusters.
Sorry about the error.
-
Ok I have the chart you sent me on FAT 16.
So if you have a Hard Drive 512 M.B. in size the Clusters will be 16 kB in size and it will need 32 Sectors to make every Cluster.
And if you have a Hard Drive 1024 M.B. in size the Cluters will be 32 kB in size and it will need 64 Sectors to make every Cluster.
So I see that the Cluster size changes because every Setor is 412 Bytes in size and it may take more or less of them to make every Cluster RIGHT??????
-
So I see that the Cluster size changes because every Setor is 412 Bytes in size and it may take more or less of them to make every Cluster RIGHT?Huh??
I don't know where you get the idea that every sector is 412 bytes in size but I'll assume that it's a typo for 512 bytes - so YES!!! ;D Every sector is 512 bytes in size and the number of sectors per cluster and the number of clusters per logical drive can vary with the logical drive size. The maximum number of clusters per logical drive using the FAT16 system is 65,526.
-
Ok I got the chart for FAT 16 and all the diferant size Hard Drives it supports and Sector per Cluster and Size of Cluster.
Do you have a chart for FAT 32 like that??
-
OK I have it and I think I have put everything down for FAT 12 FAT 16 FAT 32.
Please go through my list to see if I have it correct?
And you will see some things BLANK because I did not know and can not finde what to put. If anyone know please fill in my chart and past it in the reply thanks.
F.A.T Type = 12
Maximum Partition size = 16 M.B.
Maximum number of Clusters = 4,086
Cluster Size = 4. k.B.
Sectors Per Cluster = 8.
F.A.T Type = 16
Maximum Partition size = 16 M.B. / 127 M.B.
Maximum number of Clusters = 65,526
Cluster Size = 2 k.B.
Sectors Per Cluster = 4.
F.A.T Type = 16
Maximum Partition size = 128 M.B. / 255 M.B.
Maximum number of Clusters =
Cluster Size = 4. k.B.
Sectors Per Cluster = 8.
F.A.T Type = 16
Maximum Partition size = 256 M.B. / 511 M.B.
Maximum number of Clusters =
Cluster Size = 8. k.B.
Sectors Per Cluster = 16 . k.B.
F.A.T Type = 16
Maximum Partition size = 512 M.B. / 1023 M.B.
Maximum number of Clusters =
Cluster Size = 16 k>B.
Sectors Per Cluster = 32
F.A.T Type = 16
Maximum Partition size = 1024 M.B. / 1047 M.B.
Maximum number of Clusters =
Cluster Size = 32 k.B.
Sectors Per Cluster = 64
F.A.T Type = 32
Maximum Partition size = 32.52 M.B. / 260 M.B.
Maximum number of Clusters
Cluster Size = 0.5 k.B.
Sectors Per Cluster = 1.
F.A.T Type = 32
Maximum Partition size = 260 M.B. / 8. G.B.
Maximum number of Clusters
Cluster Size = 4. k.B.
Sectors Per Cluster = 8.
F.A.T Type = 32
Maximum Partition size = 8. G.B. / 16 G.B.
Maximum number of Clusters
Cluster Size = 8. k.B.
Sectors Per Cluster = 16
F.A.T Type = 32
Maximum Partition size = 16 G.B. / 32 G.B.
Maximum number of Clusters
Cluster Size = 16 k.B.
Sectors Per Cluster = 32
F.A.T Type = 32
Maximum Partition size = 32 G.B. / 2. T.B.
Maximum number of Clusters
Cluster Size = 32 k.B.
Sectors Per Cluster = 64
-
I am sorry for asking but do I have it yet?
I do not know if I had a Reply my Computer was acting up with the posts THANKS
-
Do you have what ???
You have a table showing Logical Volume Size and Cluster size, just divide the Logical Volume size by the Cluster Size and you have the approximate number of clusters on that volume. You didn't really expect one of us to do that for you ???
-
OK so if I have it right if I am going to have FAT 16 on a Hard Drive that is 255 MB in size and I know the Cluster size will be 4kB.
Then the math goes like this 255,000,000 divided by 4000 = 63,750 Clusters.
So I will have 63,750 Clusters on that Drive RIGHT???
-
Close enough to earn you an A grading..
-
I needed help finding a fue of the number of Clusters?
I was useing google.com to find the BIG ones and then it was not working any more for them.
I just need these thanks
32.52 MB divided by 0.5 kB is how many clusters.
260 MB divided by 0.5 kB is how many clusters.
2 TB divided by 32 kB is how many clusters.
-
this is really just basic math...
32.52 MB divided by 0.5 kB is how many clusters.
32.52*1024*1024=34,099,692 bytes / 512 bytes = 66,601 clusters.
260 MB divided by 0.5 kB is how many clusters.
260*1024=26,624 KB * 2 = 53,248 clusters.
2 TB divided by 32 kB is how many clusters.
I hope you can see the pattern and apply it here- 2TB is 2*1024*1024 KB... then divide by 32...
-
Can someone tell me if I have this coreect?
If you see the numbers 250 M.B. you would write it as 250,000,000
So if you see 1024 M.B. would you write it as 1,024,000
Is this right
-
technically, a KB is, for example, 1000 bytes, since they introduced "KiB" "Kibibytes" and "MibiBytes" and other such nonsense. It just ends up confusiong people- I always go with the powers of ten approach. So 1024MB would be 1,048,576KB
-
OK I am geting lost
1024 M.B.
We would say ONE thousand twentyfour Million
RIGHT
-
Sigh...
-
OK I am geting lost
1024 M.B.
We would say ONE thousand twentyfour Million
RIGHT
one thousand twenty four Megabytes.
of course you could say "One billion seventy three million seven hundred and forty one thousand eight hundred and twenty four bytes".
1,073,741,824
Powers of 2.
-
Let me quote from a site - http://www.whatsabyte.com/ - which might help explain some apparent inconsistencies!!!
These terms are usually used in the world of computing to describe disk space, or data storage space, and system memory. For instance, just a few years ago we were describing hard drive space using the term Megabytes. Today, Gigabytes is the most common term being used to describe the size of a hard drive. In the not so distant future, Terabyte will be a common term. But what are they? This is where it gets quite confusing because there are at least three accepted definitions of each term.
According to the IBM Dictionary of computing, when used to describe disk storage capacity, a megabyte is 1,000,000 bytes in decimal notation. But when the term megabyte is used for real and virtual storage, and channel volume, 2 to the 20th power or 1,048,576 bytes is the appropriate notation. According to the Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, a megabyte means either 1,000,000 bytes or 1,048,576 bytes. According to Eric S. Raymond in The New Hacker's Dictionary, a megabyte is always 1,048,576 bytes on the argument that bytes should naturally be computed in powers of two. So which definition do most people conform to?
When referring to a megabyte for disk storage, the hard drive manufacturers use the standard that a megabyte is 1,000,000 bytes. This means that when you buy an 80 Gigabyte Hard drive you will get a total of 80,000,000,000 bytes of available storage. This is where it gets confusing because Windows uses the 1,048,576 byte rule so when you look at the Windows drive properties an 80 Gigabyte drive will report a capacity of 74.56 Gigabytes. Anybody confused yet? With three accepted definitions, there will always be some confusion so I will try to simplify the definitions a little.
The 1000 can be replaced with 1024 and still be correct using the other acceptable standards. Both of these standards are correct depending on what type of storage you are referring.
Just a reminder - in the decimal notation -
K - kilo - 1000 - 10^3
M - mega - 1,000,000 - 10^6
G - giga - 1,000,000,000 - 10^9
-
Sigh...
;D :D ;D :D ;D :D
-
they wanted to introduce the Kibibyte and mibibyte BS because people were getting confused. Well guess what! Now their TWICE as confused because nobody whose been using Megabyte for the last 20 to 30 years wants to suddenly decide to call it a "Mibibyte" Because everybody is confusing standard metric with the non-standard extension of metric that was created to make it easier to measure memory and disk space.
Hard Drive space is an extension of System RAM in that data stored to the disk always comes from RAM. Since RAM uses the power of 2 extension to metric, it only makes sense to use the same term.
you save 1 KB of data to the hard disk from RAM and suddenly it's now 1.024 KB?
When you buy a Hard disk and save 1GB of RAM to it, should it suddenly bloat to 1.024GB?
No- so they introduced their new "standard". Now we reduce confusion because instead of changing the value, it changes the unit measurement.
Memory and all extensions thereof should be measured using the standard metric terms but base 2 exponents. If people are confused by that initially- alright, but they learn. there is no reason to suddenly introduce context sensitive abbreviations with convoluted naming schemes involving modified greek prefixes.
-
So all of these would be right.
1 kB = 1,000 Bytes
1 kB = 1,280 Bytes
1 MB = 1,000,000 Bytes
1 MB = 1,024 Bytes
1 MB = 1,048,576 Bytes
-
So all of these would be right.
1 kB = 1,000 Bytes
1 kB = 1,280 Bytes X 1KB=1024 bytes
1 MB = 1,000,000 Bytes
1 MB = 1,024 Bytes X 1MB =1024 KB
1 MB = 1,048,576 Bytes
-
What di you meen when you just told me
1 kB = 1,280 Bytes X 1KB=1024 bytes
Are you telling me 1,280 Bytes Times 1,000 Bytes = 1,024 Bytes
-
X means wrong. All the others are right. My corrections are in red alongside the X's.
-
I think I got it now.
1. MB = 1,000,000 Bytes
1. MB = 1,024,000 Bytes
1. kB = 1,000 Bytes
1. kB = 1,024 Bytes
RIGHT
-
OK this is what I did not understand and I did not put it this way befor sorry.
If you see something that says 512 MB you will write it as 512,000,000 but iff you see something that says 1024 MB you will write 1,024,000 am I RIGHT ON just this
-
If you see something that says 512 MB you will write it as 512,000,000 but if you see something that says 1024 MB you will write 1,024,000 am I RIGHT ON just this
Your first is right the second wrong!!! Remember - Mega = 10^6 - You have written 1024 Mb as 1024 Kb - you left off three zeros!
1024 Mb could as easily be termed 1.024Gb! - 1,024,000,000
Check out what powers of 10 actually do! ;)
-
OK I think I have my chart going in the right way.
1. kiB = 1,024
1. MB = 1,000,000
1. MiB = 1,048,576
1. kB = 1,000
And if we see something that says 1,024 MB we write it as 1,024,000,000
-
OK I think this will help me understand about Kilo Maga and Giga.
I am looking at a Motherboard that say the Frontside BUS is
1333 MHz
So would we write it as
1,333,000 Hz
-
Definition of mega
mega
1,000,000 or 10^6. A prefix meaning one million. As in 100 megaton or 100,000,000 tons.
So 1333 MHz = 1333 X 1,000,000 = 1,333,000,000
-
Regardless- the binary prefix meanings are only used for memory and that definition was extended to hard disks- it's never used for hertz or any other unit, a Kilometer is 1,000 meters, not 1,024.
-
I will tell you ware I get lost.
If I see
1024 MB I would write it as 1,024,000 Bytes that would be
One Million Tweanty Four Thousand
But if we see 1333 MHz we write it as 1,333,000 Hz
-
If you see something that says 512 MB you will write it as 512,000,000 but if you see something that says 1024 MB you will write 1,024,000 am I RIGHT ON just this
Your first is right the second wrong!!! Remember - Mega = 10^6 - You have written 1024 Mb as 1024 Kb - you left off three zeros!
1024 Mb could as easily be termed 1.024Gb! - 1,024,000,000
Check out what powers of 10 actually do! ;)
-
So 1012 MB = 1,012,000,000
RIGHT I get it now
-
So 1012 MB = 1,012,000,000
RIGHT I get it now
Hey Reddevilgg, Dusty, Patio, BC_Programmer, ChrisXPPro, break out the champagne, we're gonna have a party to celebrate nymph4 getting it! A breakthrough has at last been achieved. Well done nymph4...
So 1012 MB = 1,012,000,000
RIGHT I get it now
-
YYEEEEEEEEAAAAHHHHHH
[Saving space - attachment deleted by admin]
-
My champagne hasn't arrived yet - but I'll enjoy it when it does!!!! ;) ;D
-
it took 3 pages to understand binary and standard metric...
-
My champagne hasn't arrived yet - but I'll enjoy it when it does!!!! ;) ;D
Sorry, I've drunk it, it was lovely.
it took 3 pages to understand binary and standard metric...
You've got to start somewhere, and where else than this fantastic site 8)
-
Thank for all the help
-
I need some help with FAT 32 and 16.
If you use FAT 32 I know that the Cluster Size will be determand by the Hard Drive Size.
But say you wanted to make Cluster Sizes a sertan Size can you do this?
-
Why do you need to know this, nymph4, if we knew 'why and what for' then maybe we could help a little better?
-
But say you wanted to make Cluster Sizes a sertan Size can you do this?
in short yes. but you'll need to change the hard drive size.
-
What I meen is what if you have an 8. Gig Hard Drive and you are going to install Windows and you pick FAT 32 you know it will makew every Cluster 4. kB in size.
How can you make them what you want??
-
I'm never gonna make it thru this A+ exam.....
-
I'm never gonna make it thru this A+ exam.....
Sigh ::)
-
OK I have been looking at all diferant Documnebtion on the net about FAT 16 / 32 just to get a batter understanding of how they work.
And I know how many Clusters FAT 16 can support and how many Cluster FAT 32 can support.
And FAT 16 Default Cluster Size is 32 kB
But what is the Default Cluster Size of FAT 32???????
-
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/192322