flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > say no to NTFS, do FAT32 > 32GB now

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8884
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
been abused by NTFS for the second time
everytime after the system boot and detect orphaned file, clearing index, and the chkdsk try very hard to recover them, all the files would get corrupted, corrupt means, cannot open anymore.

i blame NTFS, i preffer FAT32, coz they never yet give me problem like this.
but i got sata that around 160GB, if FAT32 support only 32GB, that means, i would need to have 5 partition in order to enjoy FAT32.

so, google a bit, then i found
http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/index.htm?fat32format.htm

would try them tonite hopefully and if it works, good bye to all my NTFS.
Post 09 Aug 2007, 14:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
.

> i blame NTFS, i preffer FAT32

So do I Wink

> if FAT32 support only 32GB

LIE !!! Evil or Very Mad

FAT supports volumes up to 2 TiB Wink

Where does the 32 GiB limit come from ? Crippeling XP/Vi$ta Sad

File size limit on FAT32:

- 2 GiB most compatible (with buggy implementations)
- 4 GiB (M$'s "standard")
- 256 GiB :
http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0503736/php/drdoswiki/index.php?n=Main.FATplus
http://www.fdos.org/kernel/fatplus.txt Shocked
Post 09 Aug 2007, 16:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mr_Silent



Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 30
Mr_Silent
For me 4Gb per-file limit is more frustrating than the one above...
Post 09 Aug 2007, 17:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8884
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
so, any security "concept" on fat32 ?? that u guys know could make my partition a little bit secure?
Post 10 Aug 2007, 00:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
mattst88



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 260
Location: South Carolina
mattst88
Hmm, I never knew FAT32 supported partitions greater than 32GB. Pretty cool.

Learn something new everyday.

I guess the only real reason I'd need this though is if my OS couldn't read an NTFS partition with my stuff on it or something.

There are better file systems than FAT32 for all non-Windows OSs though.
Post 10 Aug 2007, 01:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
4gig per-file limit = no-go for me. Lack of security and even meta-data journalling is also pretty bad.

Your problems sound pretty weird, sleepsleep - I've always found NTFS to be a far more stable filesystem than FAT... FAT tends to get nasty corruption on something as simple as an unexpected poweroff, I haven't had NTFS corruption except for some very ill-behaved drivers messing up things.
Post 10 Aug 2007, 10:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8884
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
yo fodder
got abused by it twice, i scared already, around 10GB +- data gone.
now i stick to FAT32, later if exFAT comes up and support windows, then i switch to it Smile
Post 10 Aug 2007, 23:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
sleepsleep: that sounds very weird... what kind of situation has caused the data loss? Is there anything quirky about drivers in your system, or perhaps your chipset? I've used NTFS across a wide range of systems, both AMD and intel, various chipsets, graphics cards, etc. and I've never had a serious filesystem crash except a few times because of ATI drivers.
Post 11 Aug 2007, 06:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
zir_blazer



Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 66
zir_blazer
I agree. After years of using NTFS, it is MUCH more reliable than whatever that FAT32 could have hope to be. Actually, in FAT32 I got my data corrupted mostly in power outrages that shutted down my system, but NTFS so far, was rock solid.
From the few errors that I recall from NTFS, was that the WXP bootloader does NOT support NTFS clusters sizes above 4 KB in the boot partition but tells you nothing about it. I had a NTFS partition with clusters sizes of 64 KB (Mainly for big ISOs) that I tried to install WXP into it and it would never boot up, until I readed about the bootloader limitation.
Post 12 Aug 2007, 03:43
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8884
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
until i met orphaned files and directory and chkdsk reindex back then i lost everything that get repaired by chkdsk....

yo yo fodder, idk also what cause it to happened Sad, coz i don't have power outrage as fas as i know. the system boots up and told me it wanna have some check, so, without pressing any key, the countdown began then some message detected orphaned files comes up, and for you information, it runs for nearly half hour!!! for God sake... all the files that get showned during the repair ,, all gone corrupted...

i was like ........................ ....
Post 12 Aug 2007, 05:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
sleepsleep wrote:
yo yo fodder, idk also what cause it to happened Sad


Should never have happened from a normal crash... the most serious was because of buggy ATI drivers, whereafter I had to recover with recovery software - chkdsk isn't meant for severe corruption Smile

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 12 Aug 2007, 20:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ATV



Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 109
Location: Finland
ATV
I like FAT, its easy and you can calculate where everything is. Im not fan of FAT12, because way to put entry over sector limit.

Late 90s my little sister computer had crash. First 41 sectors of first copy of FAT16 was overwritten with html code (some IE/win bug). I was trying scandisk/chkdisk for DOS and those programs only find croslinked files. And using them you will get even deeper trouble. They try to use first FAT, no matter what mess it has even that second copy is ok. I use my own disk tool to overwrite first copy of FAT with second copy. And everything works find.

FAT is good, it just need good tools. Don't trust MS stuff.
If NTFS fail, I have to raise my hands.
Post 13 Aug 2007, 07:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
The 32GB limit has nothing to do with Windows or its file system. It's a limit in old BIOSes. Even old versions of Windows (e.g Win98SE) support much more than this limit. MS-DOS and fdisk may have some trouble understanding them, though.

Quote:
FAT tends to get nasty corruption on something as simple as an unexpected poweroff

I rarely had any problem on my personal data partitions. Almost all data corruption problems happen on the system partition and they are never serious (so far).

Quote:
Actually, in FAT32 I got my data corrupted mostly in power outrages that shutted down my system

Wow, with power cuts all day long and a faulty UPS I've never had any corrupted data. More than once I was even defragmenting the drive when power went off.
Post 13 Aug 2007, 08:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
ManOfSteel wrote:

Quote:
The 32GB limit has nothing to do with Windows or its file system. It's a limit in old BIOSes. Even old versions of Windows (e.g Win98SE) support much more than this limit. MS-DOS and fdisk may have some trouble understanding them, though.


SORRY but this is absolutely wrong.

1. A 32 GiB limit coming from old BIOSes exists / used to exist, but is unrelated to the one discussed here and not specific to NTFS.
2. YES, Widows 98SSE doesn't have a 32 GiB FAT32 limit. It was introduced as a new "feature" of Widows 2000.
3. MS-DOG supports neither FAT32 nor LBA - it will see 8 GiB total HD size at best, and no FAT32 partitions at all, irrespective how small they might be.

FAT32 is perfectly reliable (does not mean absolutely undamagable of course), and you can use disk editors and fix problems yourself.

NTFS in a black box ... and is not even reliable, at least in my tests it wasn't - just click "badly" on a file and it disappears - "no permission to access this file" Sad And, you can't really delete a single file from it - either everything or nothing Confused
Post 14 Aug 2007, 07:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Quote:
A 32 GiB limit coming from old BIOSes exists / used to exist, but is unrelated to the one discussed here and not specific to NTFS.

I know and never said it was. I clearly showed this 'unrelatedness' in the sentence you quoted ("The 32GB limit has nothing to do with Windows or its file system. It's a limit in old BIOSes").
And I was talking about FAT not NTFS.

Quote:
It was introduced as a new "feature" of Widows 2000.

No problem, since I was talking about my personal experience with FAT on Win98SE.

Quote:
MS-DOG supports neither FAT32 nor LBA

'Plain' DOS mode understands and is able to fully use all my partitions on all my drives on all my computers without a single problem. And they are all FAT32. DOS is even more accurate than Windows when it comes to finding used/free space. I have to do a scandisk and correct some error in the MBR for Windows to show the right used/free space.

Quote:
it will see 8 GiB total HD size at best, and no FAT32 partitions at all, irrespective how small they might be

On one computer the first drive is 10 times that limit and the second is 5. As I said the only problem comes with tools like fdisk than have trouble understanding the size of partitions, but do their job fine when you use percentages instead of static sizes.
From Microsoft's article 154997: "some hard disks may not be able to contain bootable partitions that are larger than 7.8 GB because of limitations in your computer's basic input/output system (BIOS) INT13 interface."
Post 14 Aug 2007, 09:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
Quote:
'Plain' DOS mode understands


Maybe ... but not 'plain' official MS-DOG Laughing

Quote:
From Microsoft's article 154997: "some hard disks may not be able to contain bootable partitions that are larger than 7.8 GB because of limitations in your computer's basic input/output system (BIOS) INT13 interface."


True (exceptionally) ... and there used to be even older BIOS'es limiting to 2 GiB, 512 MiB, or even less Laughing

_________________
Bug Nr.: 12345

Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!!

Status: Closed: NOT a Bug
Post 18 Aug 2007, 05:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8884
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
microsoft official releases exFAT support for windows xp (need sp2 or sp3)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/955704

i been waiting from 12 Aug 2007... almost a year + half.
Post 18 Feb 2009, 18:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
DOG386 wrote:
MS-DOG supports neither FAT32 nor LBA
Damn. Does dog at least support FAT16? If not.. that REALLY sucks. Sad

f0dder wrote:
I've always found NTFS to be a far more stable filesystem than FAT
Same here.
Post 18 Feb 2009, 19:31
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Azu wrote:
DOG386 wrote:
MS-DOG supports neither FAT32 nor LBA
Damn. Does dog at least support FAT16? If not.. that REALLY sucks. Sad


Microsoft DOSes before Win95 (OSR2?) didn't support FAT32. FreeDOS has FAT32. Even latest / last PC-DOS and PTS-DOS32 supposedly support FAT32. EDR-DOS has it (although DR-DOS had beta TSRs a while back). In short, not all DOSes are created equal. (But all support at least FAT12 & FAT16, even ZDOS.) Razz

Azu wrote:

f0dder wrote:
I've always found NTFS to be a far more stable filesystem than FAT
Same here.


Right, but it's proprietary (i.e. not well documented). Stability etc. is the whole point of NTFS. But it has more overhead (e.g. 4 GB USB drive uses 47 MB just for NTFS vs. 96k for exFAT).

EDIT: The 32 GB limit for FAT32 in recent Windows is MS' fault because they claim it is slow as molasses for larger sizes. (Might be right, too, I dunno.) And don't forget that Vista (and probably Win7) won't boot off FAT32 anymore.
Post 18 Feb 2009, 22:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
rugxulo wrote:
Azu wrote:
DOG386 wrote:
MS-DOG supports neither FAT32 nor LBA
Damn. Does dog at least support FAT16? If not.. that REALLY sucks. Sad


Microsoft DOSes before Win95 (OSR2?) didn't support FAT32. FreeDOS has FAT32. Even latest / last PC-DOS and PTS-DOS32 supposedly support FAT32. EDR-DOS has it (although DR-DOS had beta TSRs a while back). In short, not all DOSes are created equal. (But all support at least FAT12 & FAT16, even ZDOS.) Razz
I thought we were talking about DOGs not DOSs..

rugxulo wrote:

Azu wrote:

f0dder wrote:
I've always found NTFS to be a far more stable filesystem than FAT
Same here.


Right, but it's proprietary (i.e. not well documented). Stability etc. is the whole point of NTFS. But it has more overhead (e.g. 4 GB USB drive uses 47 MB just for NTFS vs. 96k for exFAT).

EDIT: The 32 GB limit for FAT32 in recent Windows is MS' fault because they claim it is slow as molasses for larger sizes. (Might be right, too, I dunno.) And don't forget that Vista (and probably Win7) won't boot off FAT32 anymore.
If you want a FS that is well documented, fast, stable and not proprietary.. maybe XFS, ZFS, Reiser4, or EXT4? IIRC windows can only handle FSs that are proprietary and undocumented, or slow, though.
Post 18 Feb 2009, 22:37
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.