OpenEuphoria

Re: cluster size

• Posted by Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum_analyst at hotmail.com> Jan 27, 2002
• 439 views

>>It doesn't matter what patition the drive is on.
>
>But you said:
>
>>>>One reason, I believe, is that the 1st FAT32 drive is the native 
>>>> >>>>drive and the second drive is a FAT32b partition (extended DOS and 
>>>> >>>>Logical Drive),

I never said that. That message was from vern at lvp.eastlink.ca.

>From: Kat <gertie at PELL.NET>
>Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
>To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
>Subject: Re: cluster size
>Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 20:12:19 -0600
>
>
>On 27 Jan 2002, at 21:00, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
>
> >
> > It doesn't matter what patition the drive is on.
>
>But you said:
>
> > > > One reason, I believe, is that the 1st FAT32 drive is the native 
>drive
> > >and
> > > > the second drive is a FAT32b partition (extended DOS and Logical 
>Drive),
>
>Which as you now say, has nothing to do with the question or the
>explaination. Especially since the original question was about 2 different
>drives, not two partitions.
>
>Kat
>
> > It depends on what the
> > cluster size is set to when it is formatted. The drive is seperated into
> > blocks of 512 bytes. When it is changed to FAT32, you can set it to 8, 
>16, 32,
> > 64 or 128 blocks per cluster. When you create a file, it takes up at 
>least one
> > of these clusters. The filename does take up space in the FAT tables, 
>but that
> > is pre-allocated. In Win95-OSR2 and Win98 there is a program that you 
>can use to
> > change from FAT16 to FAT32 and you can choose the cluster size. 
>Unfortunately,
> > you ca't change it later on unless you reformat the drive or use 
>non-destructive
> > methods.
> >
> >
> > >From: Kat <gertie at PELL.NET>
> > >Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
> > >To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> > >Subject: Re: cluster size
> > >Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:06:43 -0600
> > >
> > >
> > >On 27 Jan 2002, at 8:09, vern at lvp.eastlink.ca wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Kat" <gertie at PELL.NET>
> > > > To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 2:04 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: cluster size
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 26 Jan 2002, at 21:15, Dan Moyer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone know how I can programmatically find out what is the
> > >minimum
> > > > > > cluster size used on a drive?  I'm under the impression that it 
>can
> > > > vary,
> > > > > > since a small file (little bigger than a Kb) on one drive takes 
>up
> > >4096
> > > > > > bytes, and the same file on another drive takes up 8192 bytes.  
>Both
> > > > drives
> > > > > > indicate FAT32 from fdisk.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Euman did a include to get all the drive stats.
> > > > >
> > > > > > And am I right in thinking that it is cluster size rather than
> > >simply
> > > > file
> > > > > > size that relates to how much of a drive is used up?  In other
> > >words, if
> > > > you
> > > > > > have a whole bunch of small files, each actually takes up (at 
>least)
> > >one
> > > > > > cluster, so more of your drive may be used up than would seem so
> > >from
> > > > just
> > > > > > adding up file sizes?
> > > > >
> > > > >  Correct. The dos 8.3 filename takes up one slot, 9.3 takes up one
> > >more
> > > > > slot, and each 7chars over that will count as another filename 
>slot
> > >too
> > > > under
> > > > > fat32.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kat
<snip>

>
>
>