Re: FAT v FAT32 for USB solid state thumbdrives
me
"son of a bitch" <bitchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4a2fad03$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Marts wrote:
>> Just bought a USB drive, a 2 gig "A-Data" cheapy from OrificeWorks. Had
>> problems
>> writing to it. Properties tells me that it's formated to FAT.
>>
>> Maybe it doesn't like larger files or long filenames or something, as one
>> of the
>> errors that I got was "path too deep" when a write operation failed.
>>
>> So I reformatted it to FAT32. But the same problem is occuring.
>>
>> I checked another thumbdrive that I've been using for a while with no
>> errors.
>> It's a FAT formatted drive. So, reformatting the new one to FAT32 made no
>> difference in terms of the problem.
>>
>> Why do they format these things to the FAT standard? Why not FAT32 or
>> perhaps
>> NTFS?
>>
>> Anyway, the problem may be hardware related on the PC side. Will try
>> reinstalling USB drivers and seeing if that fixes the problem.
>
> here's a clue.....
>
> The only real difference between a fat and fa32 is 32.
>
> A fat32 allows for a single file to exceed a 2GB file size, so
> how big is your stick.
>
> Performance: you won't notice any difference on this size
> These cheapies are really cheap, and they are about as fast a
> 3.5" floppy. It might work on a USB1.0
Go play with mrs dos
teebo
>>> problems writing to it. Properties tells me that it's formated to FAT.
>>> Maybe it doesn't like larger files or long filenames or something, as one
>>> of the errors that I got was "path too deep" when a write operation failed.
there is no difference on path-depth (how long filenames
you can have including the path from the root) on fat and fat32,
and actually that kinds of limit isn't in the filesystem
itself but in the operatingsystem if you get hit that.
Dos might have limits of how long path can be, but other
operating systems don't really have to care and can make
as long as they wish (of course you may get problems if you
want to reach those files from dos later on)
there is though a limit on how long a long filename
can be (it will be cut off after that) because longer than
255 characters name would be ridiculous.
(theoreticly up to 818 chars would have been possible)
>>> So I reformatted it to FAT32. But the same problem is occuring.
as long as your usb memory isn't larger than 2GB there is
no need to use anything else than normal FAT (FAT16),
except if you need to have more than 65517 files on it.
Larger disks need FAT32, it is ok up to 8 TB
(each file can't be larger than 4GB though, if you don't
use FAT32+ wich not many operating systems support yet)
>>> I checked another thumbdrive that I've been using for a while with no
>>> errors. It's a FAT formatted drive. So, reformatting the new one to
there should be no difference between two usb-memories
it is the computers operatingsystem who decides what bytes to
write on the memory, the usb-memory itself have no saying in
how the filesystem is set up (except for mp3-players and cameras
of course that needs to understand its own disk)
>>> Why do they format these things to the FAT standard? Why not FAT32 or
>>> perhaps NTFS?
FAT waste less space than FAT32 since it don't need as big
file allocation table. NTFS isn't used because it can't be
used universally everywhere and there is no need for its
extra features like who owns what file etc on an usb-memory.
There is no gain in making more complicated than necessary.
>>> Anyway, the problem may be hardware related on the PC side. Will try
>>> reinstalling USB drivers and seeing if that fixes the problem.
since you are here I assume you are using your usb-memories
from plain dos (no Windows) so yes there can be some problem
with you usb-drivers for dos. (If you don't use any driver
then perhaps your usb-memory support in dos comes from your
motherboards bios, and you can't do much about that...)
>> The only real difference between a fat and fat32 is 32.
woldn't the difference between a fat16 and fat32 be 16 hehe?
or rather 12 since only 28 bits are used in fat32 :-D
>> A fat32 allows for a single file to exceed a 2GB file size, so
>> how big is your stick.
I say probably 3 inches...
"yes but size isn't important my friend, it's where you stick it" ;-)
>> Performance: you won't notice any difference on this size
>> These cheapies are really cheap, and they are about as fast a
>> 3.5" floppy. It might work on a USB1.0
Yeah I guess so....
I wonder when really fast USB3 usb-memories will pop up?
> Go play with mrs dos
don't you mean dr dos? :)