format hard drive (fat)
jeff
I do this?
I would do this on windows, but it will only let me do up to 32gb with
fat, and I don't want to use ext2/3 ect. but I would like to use it on
windows, linux, and sometimes mac.
J.O. Aho
for example:
mkfs.vfat /dev/sda1
change the device to the one given to the hard drive when you plug it in
(simple way, make "ls /dev" before and after you plug it in and you see which
device(s) is new and that should be the one for the hard drive).
--
//Aho
George Peter Staplin
Unfortunately you're limited to 32GB partitions with FAT32 according to
Microsoft's documentation.
You might be able to use ext3, if you use a file system driver for
Windows, such as this (though I've never used it, I found it linked to
from the e2fsprogs site):
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd
There are also other tools that can read and sometimes write to
ext2 and/or ext3 file systems in Windows.
MacOS X I think has support for ext3 via some 3rd party tools as well.
One option you might also consider is possibly making it a network
drive, that uses SMB, or NFS. There are NFS clients for Windows.
George
jeff
true? And I would rather not have to install extra software on every
computer I want to use it on, because I'd like to be able to use it
easily anywhere.
Rikishi 42
>
>
> jeff wrote:
>> I have a 250gb USB hard drive I would like to format with fat, how can
>> I do this?
>> I would do this on windows, but it will only let me do up to 32gb with
>> fat, and I don't want to use ext2/3 ect. but I would like to use it on
>> windows, linux, and sometimes mac.
>
> Unfortunately you're limited to 32GB partitions with FAT32 according to
> Microsoft's documentation.
You can go much much higher.
The only problem is that Windows will not help. It'll refuse to go beyond
32GB, in rencent versions.
I saw that someone had posted the syntax for the command line formatting.
Some graphical tools will do the same. I did mine with the Partitioner tool
in openSUSE. But the OP didn't say what distro he's using.
--
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying.
The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
Douglas Adams
Davorin Vlahovic
> I have a 250gb USB hard drive I would like to format with fat, how can
> I do this?
Don't. Format it as NTFS and be done with it. FAT has numerous
limitations, and one among them is file system size.
> I would do this on windows, but it will only let me do up to 32gb with
> fat, and I don't want to use ext2/3 ect. but I would like to use it on
> windows, linux, and sometimes mac.
Don't know for mac, but windows and linux can easily interoperate
through ntfs-3g on Linux side.
OTOH, you could format it ext3 and use drivers for ext3 on windows; mac
knows how to use ext3.
--
Ignorance has taken over
Yo, we gotta take the power back!
-- Rage Against The Machine, Take the power back
EOS
you can go higher than 32GB on Fat ;-)
but if you have a file (like iso) greater than 4GB it doesn't fit on fat.
I did the format in linux (with YaST from openSUSE)
http://users.telenet.be/photo-memories/img/fat.png
--
EOS
www.photo-memories.be
Running KDE 3.5.8 / openSUSE 10.3
Baron
He will need to partition the drive into two first. 135GB is max FAT32
size.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
J.O. Aho
Max size for fat32 is ranged up to 8TiB depending on the sector size, there
are limitation in tools like the microsftxp (including later versions too)
installer which limits the size to 32GiB.
--
//Aho
Davorin Vlahovic
So, how much disk space do you lose if you place a lot of small
(<cluster size) files, or files that are just above an integer number of
cluster size?
IMO, using FAT32 on this kind of disk is totally unacceptable.
--
SCIENCE. It works, bitches.
-- XKCD, 54
Hadron
Over reaction IMO. Most people discuss this scenario simply because they
want a reliable shared partition. Disk space is so cheap that so long as
you're not keeping billions of, say, Maildir entries then it really
doesn't make that big of an issue compared to the convenience of the
shared area.
Davorin Vlahovic
>> IMO, using FAT32 on this kind of disk is totally unacceptable.
>
> Over reaction IMO. Most people discuss this scenario simply because they
> want a reliable shared partition. Disk space is so cheap that so long as
> you're not keeping billions of, say, Maildir entries then it really
> doesn't make that big of an issue compared to the convenience of the
> shared area.
I understand your point, but today there are better options for shared
partitions. Even windows knows how to read and write ext partitions,
and linux knows how to read and write ntfs partitions.
FAT is unreliable, doesn't have many important capabilities and wastes
space - not only on small files, but on big ones too.
Rikishi 42
Then please exaplain how my 160 GB works....
J.O. Aho
> On 2008-01-12, Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> IMO, using FAT32 on this kind of disk is totally unacceptable.
>> Over reaction IMO. Most people discuss this scenario simply because they
>> want a reliable shared partition. Disk space is so cheap that so long as
>> you're not keeping billions of, say, Maildir entries then it really
>> doesn't make that big of an issue compared to the convenience of the
>> shared area.
>
> I understand your point, but today there are better options for shared
> partitions. Even windows knows how to read and write ext partitions,
I don't agree with you there, you still need a third party driver to be able
to do this.
> and linux knows how to read and write ntfs partitions.
Without a third party driver, Linux is just capable of reading (if you aren't
prepared on allowing it to corrupt the file system).
> FAT is unreliable, doesn't have many important capabilities and wastes
> space - not only on small files, but on big ones too.
OSX has major issues with the third party ext driver and nfts is supported by
a third party driver.
This all leads to that vfat is still the file system that is best supported
out of the box by the major operating systems. Keep in mind I'm not saying
it's a good file system.
--
//Aho
Davorin Vlahovic
>> On 2008-01-12, Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> IMO, using FAT32 on this kind of disk is totally unacceptable.
>>> Over reaction IMO. Most people discuss this scenario simply because they
>>> want a reliable shared partition. Disk space is so cheap that so long as
>>> you're not keeping billions of, say, Maildir entries then it really
>>> doesn't make that big of an issue compared to the convenience of the
>>> shared area.
>>
>> I understand your point, but today there are better options for shared
>> partitions. Even windows knows how to read and write ext partitions,
>
> I don't agree with you there, you still need a third party driver to be able
> to do this.
So you do. Big deal. It's free to download, and is only a couple of kB
in size.
>> and linux knows how to read and write ntfs partitions.
>
> Without a third party driver, Linux is just capable of reading (if you aren't
> prepared on allowing it to corrupt the file system).
NTFS-3g is also free to use.
>> FAT is unreliable, doesn't have many important capabilities and wastes
>> space - not only on small files, but on big ones too.
>
> OSX has major issues with the third party ext driver and nfts is supported by
> a third party driver.
M'kay, I've seen mac using ext3, never heard of any problems, but that
doesn't mean you're not right.
> This all leads to that vfat is still the file system that is best supported
> out of the box by the major operating systems.
Perhaps. But then use it on a partition up to 32GB in size.
> Keep in mind I'm not saying it's a good file system.
I never thought you would :D
Davorin Vlahovic
>> He will need to partition the drive into two first. 135GB is max FAT32
>> size.
>
> Then please exaplain how my 160 GB works....
Let me: it works badly.
Stuart Miller
"George Peter Staplin" <georgeps...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:fm8opg$3qk$5...@news.xmission.com...
> jeff wrote:
>> I have a 250gb USB hard drive I would like to format with fat, how can
>> I do this?
>> I would do this on windows, but it will only let me do up to 32gb with
>> fat, and I don't want to use ext2/3 ect. but I would like to use it on
>> windows, linux, and sometimes mac.
>
> Unfortunately you're limited to 32GB partitions with FAT32 according to
> Microsoft's documentation.
>
This has been the source of several discussions in the XP forums.
XP will not install properly onto a fat32 partition over 32 gigs. This is an
XP install issue which is well documented.
Win98 will install to an 80 gig partition - I have done it.
FAT32 partitions can be created much larger than that.
My Acer 5101 came with XP on the first of 2 60 gig fat32 partitions, but
they didn't 'install', they cloned
For an 80 gig partition with lots of small files, the waste can approach
10%. I can post the calculation if you want it. With a small number of large
files, such as mp3 or video, the waste % drops, but the maximum file size is
2 gigs (docs say 4 but files over 2 gigs can not be copied or moved)
Stuart
nixiguf
jeff <jeffrey.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a 250gb USB hard drive I would like to format with fat, how can
> I do this?
Go to the manufacturer's website and download a FAT32 formatting
utility software.
Perhaps this software from WD will work on yours. I don't think it
matters what brand it is.
http://support.wdc.com/download/?cxml=n&pid=37&swid=34
Baron
Sorry ! I'm thinking bios limitations. USB didn't register.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
jeff
Ext3, and since it isn't going to work with windows anyways, I
encrypted it with Luks