Hey I was trying to format my 45Gig IBM HD and it will not let me format the whole 45 gigs as one drive using fat32 so what is the max size that you can have?
Max Size for HD using fat 32
- Thread starter mikeg
- Start date
If it won't let you format the drive as one main partion! The you will have to use ez-bios to add some files to masterboot record! Then fdisk the hard drive so that you can access the full capacity of the hard drive! After you get done fdisking the hard drive then you have to format the drive! The reason why it's not letting yoou use the full capacity of your HD is because the motherboard has a Bios limitation that won't let you use the whole HD! I hope this helps!
The following limitations exist using the FAT32 file system with Windows 2000:
Clusters cannot be 64KB or larger. If clusters were 64KB or larger, some programs (such as Setup programs) might calculate disk space incorrectly.
A volume must contain at least 65,527 clusters to use the FAT32 file system. You cannot increase the cluster size on a volume using the FAT32 file system so that it ends up with less than 65,527 clusters.
The maximum possible number of clusters on a volume using the FAT32 file system is 268,435,445. With a maximum of 32 KB per cluster with space for the file allocation table (FAT), this equates to a maximum disk size of approximately 8 terabytes (TB).
The ScanDisk tool included with Microsoft Windows 95 and Microsoft Windows 98 is a 16-bit program. Such programs have a single memory block maximum allocation size of 16 MB less 64 KB. Therefore, The Windows 95/98 ScanDisk tool cannot process volumes using the FAT32 file system that have a FAT larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size. A FAT entry on a volume using the FAT32 file system uses 4 bytes, so ScanDisk cannot process the FAT on a volume using the FAT32 file system that defines more than 4,177,920 clusters (including the two reserved clusters). Including the FATs themselves, this works out, at the maximum of 32 KB per cluster, to a volume size of 127.53 gigabytes (GB).
You cannot decrease the cluster size on a volume using the FAT32 file system so that the FAT ends up larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size.
You cannot format a volume larger than 32 GB in size using the FAT32 file system in Windows 2000. The Windows 2000 FastFAT driver can mount and support volumes larger than 32 GB that use the FAT32 file system (subject to the other limits), but you cannot create one using the Format tool. This behaviour is by design. If you need to create a volume larger than 32 GB, use the NTFS file system instead.
Clusters cannot be 64KB or larger. If clusters were 64KB or larger, some programs (such as Setup programs) might calculate disk space incorrectly.
A volume must contain at least 65,527 clusters to use the FAT32 file system. You cannot increase the cluster size on a volume using the FAT32 file system so that it ends up with less than 65,527 clusters.
The maximum possible number of clusters on a volume using the FAT32 file system is 268,435,445. With a maximum of 32 KB per cluster with space for the file allocation table (FAT), this equates to a maximum disk size of approximately 8 terabytes (TB).
The ScanDisk tool included with Microsoft Windows 95 and Microsoft Windows 98 is a 16-bit program. Such programs have a single memory block maximum allocation size of 16 MB less 64 KB. Therefore, The Windows 95/98 ScanDisk tool cannot process volumes using the FAT32 file system that have a FAT larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size. A FAT entry on a volume using the FAT32 file system uses 4 bytes, so ScanDisk cannot process the FAT on a volume using the FAT32 file system that defines more than 4,177,920 clusters (including the two reserved clusters). Including the FATs themselves, this works out, at the maximum of 32 KB per cluster, to a volume size of 127.53 gigabytes (GB).
You cannot decrease the cluster size on a volume using the FAT32 file system so that the FAT ends up larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size.
You cannot format a volume larger than 32 GB in size using the FAT32 file system in Windows 2000. The Windows 2000 FastFAT driver can mount and support volumes larger than 32 GB that use the FAT32 file system (subject to the other limits), but you cannot create one using the Format tool. This behaviour is by design. If you need to create a volume larger than 32 GB, use the NTFS file system instead.
You guys are totally funny...
<<If you are running win2k, then you can't use windows to format it. >>
Any of you ever hear of Disk Management found in Administration Tools > Computer Management???? You can DELETE Partitions, CREATE Partitions, FORMAT Partitions... in Any way shape form you choose... INCLUDING Fat32 partitions larger than 32GB!
Yes, You CAN!
<<but you cannot create one using the Format tool. This behaviour is by design>>
They are talking about "format.com" tool you use from a "command prompt". Disk Management DOES NOT use this tool.
I am STARING at a 46GB fat32 partition I created with Win2K Disk Management...
<<If you are running win2k, then you can't use windows to format it. >>
Any of you ever hear of Disk Management found in Administration Tools > Computer Management???? You can DELETE Partitions, CREATE Partitions, FORMAT Partitions... in Any way shape form you choose... INCLUDING Fat32 partitions larger than 32GB!
Yes, You CAN!
<<but you cannot create one using the Format tool. This behaviour is by design>>
They are talking about "format.com" tool you use from a "command prompt". Disk Management DOES NOT use this tool.
I am STARING at a 46GB fat32 partition I created with Win2K Disk Management...
Why one partition? I store Ghost images on it. I need to be able access it in a DOS environment using a boot disk.
I have 2 seperate HD's in that pooter.. one has the OS, the 46 gigger is used to store the images on.
Andy, I know.
It's just MS has a terrible way of wording their KB pages.. I hate MS KB pages... So user unfriendly
I have 2 seperate HD's in that pooter.. one has the OS, the 46 gigger is used to store the images on.
Andy, I know.
It's just MS has a terrible way of wording their KB pages.. I hate MS KB pages... So user unfriendly Good for you Whitedog, consider yourself lucky. My system wouldn't do it.
Just to add, who would run format.com through a dos box in win2k? Of course I was using disk management. Any drive I tried formatting would go through about 99% then give an error message of "Volume too large" which certainly sounds exactly like what the MS Knowledge Base article above says. Surf over to Storage Review, you will find numerous people who had the same problem on their message board.
Just to add, who would run format.com through a dos box in win2k? Of course I was using disk management. Any drive I tried formatting would go through about 99% then give an error message of "Volume too large" which certainly sounds exactly like what the MS Knowledge Base article above says. Surf over to Storage Review, you will find numerous people who had the same problem on their message board.
Well, my 46gig partition is an entire drive, and not a "partition" of a drive. This could be why. I dunno. Sorry to hear that
I've formatted several drives like this, so I can't explain. I always do the whole drive and not partition it.
Next big drive I hook up I'll do some playing around and see. I just never heard of the limit ans never ran into any blocks.
Just because I haven't had it happen to me, doesn't mean it's not true. I believe you!
I've formatted several drives like this, so I can't explain. I always do the whole drive and not partition it.
Next big drive I hook up I'll do some playing around and see. I just never heard of the limit ans never ran into any blocks.
Just because I haven't had it happen to me, doesn't mean it's not true. I believe you!
BTW, my 46gig FAT32 drive has 16k cluster size... Kinda doesn't add up?
I thought:
512-8gig = 4k
8gig-16gig = 8k
16-32gig = 16k
32+ = 32k
I don't remember where I read that, but it seems I did...?
I thought:
512-8gig = 4k
8gig-16gig = 8k
16-32gig = 16k
32+ = 32k
I don't remember where I read that, but it seems I did...?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter