Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

July 17, 2007

I recently purchased a 320GB HD and a USB enclosure. I used Fdisk (in

a Win98SE DOS box) to partition the drive, and I then formatted it via

the GUI. Fdisk reported some strange numbers but in the end it appears

that the drive's full capacity was achieved.

My question is, is it OK to use Scandisk to verify this drive, or will

it corrupt the file system? IIUC, internal drives have issues with

Scandisk but external drives are treated differently in some way. Are

there any other precautions I should be aware of?

BTW, if anyone would like me to do some testing, now is the time. I

suppose I could do my own experiments with Scandisk, but I thought I'd

get some opinions and suggestions before I started.

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

July 17, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

news:msoo93pvovm5mojhoopa6knemq20tf03ks@4ax.com...

| I recently purchased a 320GB HD and a USB enclosure. I used Fdisk (in

| a Win98SE DOS box) to partition the drive, and I then formatted it via

| the GUI. Fdisk reported some strange numbers but in the end it appears

| that the drive's full capacity was achieved.

|

| My question is, is it OK to use Scandisk to verify this drive, or will

| it corrupt the file system? IIUC, internal drives have issues with

| Scandisk but external drives are treated differently in some way. Are

| there any other precautions I should be aware of?

|

| BTW, if anyone would like me to do some testing, now is the time. I

| suppose I could do my own experiments with Scandisk, but I thought I'd

| get some opinions and suggestions before I started.

|

| - Franc Zabkar

| --

| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Of course we would, how about that 4kb / several hundred million files on a

single fat32 partition test that 98 Guy was supposed to do... [though that

was SATA so ....] but really, what kind of testing do YOU want to do... {and

did you buy me one too???]

Umm, partition size(s)??

July 17, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

Franc Zabkar wrote:

> I recently purchased a 320GB HD and a USB enclosure. I used Fdisk (in

> a Win98SE DOS box) to partition the drive, and I then formatted it via

> the GUI. Fdisk reported some strange numbers but in the end it appears

> that the drive's full capacity was achieved.

>

> My question is, is it OK to use Scandisk to verify this drive, or will

> it corrupt the file system? IIUC, internal drives have issues with

> Scandisk but external drives are treated differently in some way. Are

> there any other precautions I should be aware of?

>

Scandisk will corrupt your filesystem.

There is a difference on disklevel between internal and external disks

(internal disks use LBA28 addressing, which give you a maximum of 2^28

sectors, which is 128 GiB), but 'the scandisk bug' is a memory limitation,

and has nothing to do with sector addresses.

<http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184006>

WinME's scandisk doesn't have this limitation.

July 17, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

Hi Franc,

Long time since I've spoken with you. I believe MS-MVP Chris Quirke has

written about Scandisk "breaking" large drives. I'll try to find the info.,

in the meantime maybe he'll see this and jump in.

Thanks for all the expertise you provide.

--

HTH,

Curt

Windows Support Center

http://www.aumha.org

Practically Nerded,...

http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

news:msoo93pvovm5mojhoopa6knemq20tf03ks@4ax.com...

|I recently purchased a 320GB HD and a USB enclosure. I used Fdisk (in

| a Win98SE DOS box) to partition the drive, and I then formatted it via

| the GUI. Fdisk reported some strange numbers but in the end it appears

| that the drive's full capacity was achieved.

|

| My question is, is it OK to use Scandisk to verify this drive, or will

| it corrupt the file system? IIUC, internal drives have issues with

| Scandisk but external drives are treated differently in some way. Are

| there any other precautions I should be aware of?

|

| BTW, if anyone would like me to do some testing, now is the time. I

| suppose I could do my own experiments with Scandisk, but I thought I'd

| get some opinions and suggestions before I started.

|

| - Franc Zabkar

| --

| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

July 17, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

Ingeborg wrote:

> > I recently purchased a 320GB HD and a USB enclosure.

> > My question is, is it OK to use Scandisk to verify this drive,

>

> Scandisk will corrupt your filesystem.

Do you/we know if USB drives are controlled via ESDI_506.PDR?

What do they say on MSFN about that?

July 17, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

98 Guy wrote:

> Ingeborg wrote:

>

>> > I recently purchased a 320GB HD and a USB enclosure.

>> > My question is, is it OK to use Scandisk to verify this drive,

>>

>> Scandisk will corrupt your filesystem.

>

> Do you/we know if USB drives are controlled via ESDI_506.PDR?

>

Yes I know, they don't. But this has knothing to do with the scandisk bug.

July 18, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 03:01:24 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

put finger to keyboard and composed:

>

>"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

>news:msoo93pvovm5mojhoopa6knemq20tf03ks@4ax.com...

>| I recently purchased a 320GB HD and a USB enclosure. I used Fdisk (in

>| a Win98SE DOS box) to partition the drive, and I then formatted it via

>| the GUI. Fdisk reported some strange numbers but in the end it appears

>| that the drive's full capacity was achieved.

>|

>| My question is, is it OK to use Scandisk to verify this drive, or will

>| it corrupt the file system? IIUC, internal drives have issues with

>| Scandisk but external drives are treated differently in some way. Are

>| there any other precautions I should be aware of?

>|

>| BTW, if anyone would like me to do some testing, now is the time. I

>| suppose I could do my own experiments with Scandisk, but I thought I'd

>| get some opinions and suggestions before I started.

>|

>| - Franc Zabkar

>| --

>| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

>

> Of course we would, how about that 4kb / several hundred million files on a

>single fat32 partition test that 98 Guy was supposed to do... [though that

>was SATA so ....] but really, what kind of testing do YOU want to do... {and

>did you buy me one too???]

>

> Umm, partition size(s)??

My ultimate use for this drive will be as a DivX video jukebox

attached to the USB input of my DVD player. The chosen configuration

will need to be compatible with both the player and my Win98SE boxes.

I have yet to find out whether the player can handle a drive with more

than one partition, but so far it seems to be OK with a single 320GB

partition. My one major concern is that my data may be vulnerable to

corruption if I accidentally run some incompatible disc utility.

The main reason for my post was to offer this opportunity to

contribute to the body of test results posted by 98Guy in February

2007.

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

July 18, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 03:46:35 -0700, Ingeborg <a@b.invalid> put finger

to keyboard and composed:

>Franc Zabkar wrote:

>

>> I recently purchased a 320GB HD and a USB enclosure. I used Fdisk (in

>> a Win98SE DOS box) to partition the drive, and I then formatted it via

>> the GUI. Fdisk reported some strange numbers but in the end it appears

>> that the drive's full capacity was achieved.

>>

>> My question is, is it OK to use Scandisk to verify this drive, or will

>> it corrupt the file system? IIUC, internal drives have issues with

>> Scandisk but external drives are treated differently in some way. Are

>> there any other precautions I should be aware of?

>>

>

>Scandisk will corrupt your filesystem.

>

>There is a difference on disklevel between internal and external disks

>(internal disks use LBA28 addressing, which give you a maximum of 2^28

>sectors, which is 128 GiB), but 'the scandisk bug' is a memory limitation,

>and has nothing to do with sector addresses.

><http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184006>

>

>WinME's scandisk doesn't have this limitation.

Thanks. I remember 98Guy's extensive posts on this subject but I

confess that I didn't absorb too much at that time. However, I am now

in a position to follow them up in a practical sense.

IIUC, Win98SE's disk utilities (eg Scandskw and Defrag) will be OK

with my drive provided that I split it into partitions which are

smaller than 127GB, to accommodate a FAT size limitation. Otherwise,

for a single 320GB partition, I should use WinME's versions of

scandskw.exe, dskmaint.dll and defrag.exe, none of which have this

limitation. Alternatively, I should remember not to run the Win98SE

versions of these utilities. As for the LBA28 limitation, my drive is

not affected because it does not rely on the ESDI_506.PDR driver (I'm

using the Maximus Decim NUSB drivers).

Have I got this right?

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

July 18, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

Franc Zabkar wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 03:46:35 -0700, Ingeborg <a@b.invalid> put finger

> to keyboard and composed:

>

>>Franc Zabkar wrote:

>>

>>> I recently purchased a 320GB HD and a USB enclosure. I used Fdisk

>>> (in a Win98SE DOS box) to partition the drive, and I then formatted

>>> it via the GUI. Fdisk reported some strange numbers but in the end

>>> it appears that the drive's full capacity was achieved.

>>>

>>> My question is, is it OK to use Scandisk to verify this drive, or

>>> will it corrupt the file system? IIUC, internal drives have issues

>>> with Scandisk but external drives are treated differently in some

>>> way. Are there any other precautions I should be aware of?

>>>

>>

>>Scandisk will corrupt your filesystem.

>>

>>There is a difference on disklevel between internal and external disks

>>(internal disks use LBA28 addressing, which give you a maximum of 2^28

>>sectors, which is 128 GiB), but 'the scandisk bug' is a memory

>>limitation, and has nothing to do with sector addresses.

>><http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184006>

>>

>>WinME's scandisk doesn't have this limitation.

>

> Thanks. I remember 98Guy's extensive posts on this subject but I

> confess that I didn't absorb too much at that time. However, I am now

> in a position to follow them up in a practical sense.

>

> IIUC, Win98SE's disk utilities (eg Scandskw and Defrag) will be OK

> with my drive provided that I split it into partitions which are

> smaller than 127GB, to accommodate a FAT size limitation. Otherwise,

> for a single 320GB partition, I should use WinME's versions of

> scandskw.exe, dskmaint.dll and defrag.exe, none of which have this

> limitation. Alternatively, I should remember not to run the Win98SE

> versions of these utilities. As for the LBA28 limitation, my drive is

> not affected because it does not rely on the ESDI_506.PDR driver (I'm

> using the Maximus Decim NUSB drivers).

>

> Have I got this right?

>

Yes.

July 18, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

news:c9jq93pir9u5opug01a3hnp07b3tntiha7@4ax.com...

| On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 03:01:24 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| put finger to keyboard and composed:

|

| >

| >"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| >news:msoo93pvovm5mojhoopa6knemq20tf03ks@4ax.com...

| >| I recently purchased a 320GB HD and a USB enclosure. I used Fdisk (in

| >| a Win98SE DOS box) to partition the drive, and I then formatted it via

| >| the GUI. Fdisk reported some strange numbers but in the end it appears

| >| that the drive's full capacity was achieved.

| >|

| >| My question is, is it OK to use Scandisk to verify this drive, or will

| >| it corrupt the file system? IIUC, internal drives have issues with

| >| Scandisk but external drives are treated differently in some way. Are

| >| there any other precautions I should be aware of?

| >|

| >| BTW, if anyone would like me to do some testing, now is the time. I

| >| suppose I could do my own experiments with Scandisk, but I thought I'd

| >| get some opinions and suggestions before I started.

| >|

| >| - Franc Zabkar

| >| --

| >| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

| >

| > Of course we would, how about that 4kb / several hundred million files

on a

| >single fat32 partition test that 98 Guy was supposed to do... [though

that

| >was SATA so ....] but really, what kind of testing do YOU want to do...

{and

| >did you buy me one too???]

| >

| > Umm, partition size(s)??

|

| My ultimate use for this drive will be as a DivX video jukebox

| attached to the USB input of my DVD player. The chosen configuration

| will need to be compatible with both the player and my Win98SE boxes.

| I have yet to find out whether the player can handle a drive with more

| than one partition, but so far it seems to be OK with a single 320GB

| partition. My one major concern is that my data may be vulnerable to

| corruption if I accidentally run some incompatible disc utility.

|

| The main reason for my post was to offer this opportunity to

| contribute to the body of test results posted by 98Guy in February

| 2007.

|

| - Franc Zabkar

| --

| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

That was understood, of course most of that information was already

reviewable on MSFN, Axcel216, and even Microsoft [and several other sites

and articles which appear in those threads and elsewhere]... however, as

noted in these discussions, the esdi_506.pdr is not used [as in 98 Guy's

post and now here] so potentially the hundreds of millions of directory and

files test would likely STILL be viable under these conditions [though with

the notation of his RAID and SATA, and your USB].

The test is to stress the fat tables, parsing, memory loads, etc. to which

98 Guy alleged / discussions were held / and resolution/proof was not

actually presented: e.g., never tested/stressed with his massively large

files and relatively few entries... though that would still leave the OS on

the same large partition and any issues which might be related thereto... so

if you wish, for clarification sake, the test would still appear to be

viable and useful...

July 18, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

MEB wrote:

> ... however, as noted in these discussions, the esdi_506.pdr is

> not used [as in 98 Guy's post and now here] so potentially the

> hundreds of millions of directory and files test would likely

> STILL be viable under these conditions.

> The test is to stress the fat tables, parsing, memory loads,

> etc. to which 98 Guy alleged / discussions were held / and

> resolution/proof was not actually presented: e.g., never tested

> /stressed with his massively large files and relatively few entries

Would you care to explain the nature or theory behind a file-count

limitation that win-98 (or FAT-32?) *may* be vulnerable to - or

reference someone else's intimation of such a limitation?

And could you also explain how such a limitation couldn't be

experienced given a 127 gb volume?

July 19, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:469E8E17.FB6FF64F@Guy.com...

| MEB wrote:

|

| > ... however, as noted in these discussions, the esdi_506.pdr is

| > not used [as in 98 Guy's post and now here] so potentially the

| > hundreds of millions of directory and files test would likely

| > STILL be viable under these conditions.

|

| > The test is to stress the fat tables, parsing, memory loads,

| > etc. to which 98 Guy alleged / discussions were held / and

| > resolution/proof was not actually presented: e.g., never tested

| > /stressed with his massively large files and relatively few entries

|

| Would you care to explain the nature or theory behind a file-count

| limitation that win-98 (or FAT-32?) *may* be vulnerable to - or

| reference someone else's intimation of such a limitation?

|

| And could you also explain how such a limitation couldn't be

| experienced given a 127 gb volume?

WHAT?? How many people have to explain this to you... you had what,, four or

six in the last two discussions.. you were shown the documentation in every

one of the discussions and other aspects, and still, YOU NEVER DID THE TEST

....

So do it, prove it or disprove it.. wonderful discussions, lots of good

information, but proof the OS and fat can handle it on a daily basis... what

part of that don't you get?

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

July 19, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:469E8E17.FB6FF64F@Guy.com...

| MEB wrote:

|

| > ... however, as noted in these discussions, the esdi_506.pdr is

| > not used [as in 98 Guy's post and now here] so potentially the

| > hundreds of millions of directory and files test would likely

| > STILL be viable under these conditions.

|

| > The test is to stress the fat tables, parsing, memory loads,

| > etc. to which 98 Guy alleged / discussions were held / and

| > resolution/proof was not actually presented: e.g., never tested

| > /stressed with his massively large files and relatively few entries

|

| Would you care to explain the nature or theory behind a file-count

| limitation that win-98 (or FAT-32?) *may* be vulnerable to - or

| reference someone else's intimation of such a limitation?

|

| And could you also explain how such a limitation couldn't be

| experienced given a 127 gb volume?

WHAT?? How many people have to explain this to you... you had what,, four or

six in the last two discussions.. you were shown the documentation in every

one of the discussions and other aspects, and still,

YOU NEVER DID THE TEST to prove it one way or the other, that's all the

required..

You DID NOT test it on the 127 gig.... at least not here in this group..

....

So do it, prove it or disprove it.. wonderful discussions, lots of good

information, but proof the OS and fat can handle it on a daily basis... what

part of that don't you get?

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

July 19, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

MEB wrote:

> | Would you care to explain the nature or theory behind a file-count

> | limitation that win-98 (or FAT-32?) *may* be vulnerable to - or

> | reference someone else's intimation of such a limitation?

> |

> | And could you also explain how such a limitation couldn't be

> | experienced given a 127 gb volume?

>

> WHAT?? How many people have to explain this to you...

Again MEB fails to answer a simple question, but flies off the handle

and brushes the question away. Why even bother to respond?

> you had what,, four or six in the last two discussions..

> you were shown the documentation in every one of the

> discussions and other aspects,

So dig up the relavent material from those posts that answers my

question.

> and still, YOU NEVER DID THE TEST

That is not the point. Don't change the subject.

Where in those posts was there some supporting backup for this

supposed file-count limitation?

And listen to this:

Since I formatted a 160 gb drive using 4kb clusters, resulting in 40

million clusters, that would theoretically mean a maximum of 40

million files (you can't store more than 1 file in a single cluster).

Your claim that it's possible to have *hundreds* of millions of files

is baloney.

The file-count limitation (if it exists) is related to the number of

clusters on a volume. Given a 500 gb volume formatted with 32kb

cluster size, that would result in around 15 million clusters. Just

when is this supposed file-count limitation supposed to kick in?

> So do it, prove it or disprove it..

There is good background and history regarding the 127 gb volume-size

limitation caused by ESDI_506.PDR.

All I'm asking for is some background in the origination of where this

file-count limitation theory comes from. Some history. If you can't

provide it, don't froth at the mouth and obfuscate the question.

July 19, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

Look, that test has ALWAYS been the point, without the true results all your

postings mean *squat*.

July 19, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

MEB wrote:

> Look, that test has ALWAYS been the point

I'm not arguing for or against the existance of the file-count

limitation.

> without the true results all your postings mean *squat*.

You really don't get it, do you?

Whether or not I or anyone else performs *the test* is one thing.

I'm asking you (or anyone else reading this) to point to where this

file-count limitation was first propositioned, or by whom. Such

information would hopefully include a theory as to why win-98 might

have such a limitation, perhaps descibing the underlying mechanism

causing the limitation.

I don't think that's a foolish or irrational or pointless question,

and it can be asked in conjunction with requests to perform *the

test*. And it's a question that you should be able to answer, given

that you seem to know so much about this issue. Nobody else here is

stepping up and offering an answer.

What I have found is this:

- The claimed max number of files per directory is 65535.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2006/07/WindowsConfidential/

- Max number of files possible using FAT-32: 268,435,437

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Design

The number 268,435,437 (max number of files possible under FAT32) is

equal to 16k x 16k (ie, 16k directories, each with 16k files) or 4k x

64k (ie - 4k directories, each with 64k files).

A check of one of my win-98 systems shows 4,870 folders and 118k

files, so clearly FAT-32 can have more than 4k directories, and win-98

can handle at least that many directories as well.

Again, if there is a source, a document, a person, that claims (or

theorizes) that win-98 is practically limited to some particular

number of directories or files per volume, then please post that

information.

July 20, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

Look dude, I'd plonk your stupid stuff, but then you would have free range

here...

These are the EXACT questions you asked and were answered repeatedly in ALL

your discussions, I'm NOT doing the same stuff with you over and over

again,, I don't think anyone will...

But I will continue to point out the lack of any supporting evidence via

testing to support your claims... and the other crap you post here which is

counter to security or OS stability... count on it

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:469FDC57.55ABEE46@Guy.com...

| MEB wrote:

|

| > Look, that test has ALWAYS been the point

|

| I'm not arguing for or against the existance of the file-count

| limitation.

|

| > without the true results all your postings mean *squat*.

|

| You really don't get it, do you?

|

| Whether or not I or anyone else performs *the test* is one thing.

|

| I'm asking you (or anyone else reading this) to point to where this

| file-count limitation was first propositioned, or by whom. Such

| information would hopefully include a theory as to why win-98 might

| have such a limitation, perhaps descibing the underlying mechanism

| causing the limitation.

|

| I don't think that's a foolish or irrational or pointless question,

| and it can be asked in conjunction with requests to perform *the

| test*. And it's a question that you should be able to answer, given

| that you seem to know so much about this issue. Nobody else here is

| stepping up and offering an answer.

|

| What I have found is this:

|

| - The claimed max number of files per directory is 65535.

|

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2006/07/WindowsConfidential/

|

| - Max number of files possible using FAT-32: 268,435,437

|

| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Design

|

| The number 268,435,437 (max number of files possible under FAT32) is

| equal to 16k x 16k (ie, 16k directories, each with 16k files) or 4k x

| 64k (ie - 4k directories, each with 64k files).

|

| A check of one of my win-98 systems shows 4,870 folders and 118k

| files, so clearly FAT-32 can have more than 4k directories, and win-98

| can handle at least that many directories as well.

|

| Again, if there is a source, a document, a person, that claims (or

| theorizes) that win-98 is practically limited to some particular

| number of directories or files per volume, then please post that

| information.

July 20, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

MEB wrote:

> These are the EXACT questions you asked and were answered

> repeatedly in ALL your discussions,

I'm asking what is the source for the speculation that win-98 has a

built-in file-count limitation. You never answered that question. If

the answer exists in any thread, in any public forum, then please

quote it.

> I'm NOT doing the same stuff with you over and over again,,

You never went over it A FIRST TIME.

> But I will continue to point out the lack of any supporting

> evidence via testing to support your claims...

You have a reading comprehension problem.

I have not stated anywhere that win-98 is, or is not, limited in the

number of files it can handle on a FAT-32 volume.

I continue to ask you where did such a notion about this limitation

come from? What is the source of such an idea? Is there any

supporting facts for such a limitation?

If you can't answer that question, then just say so.

All you have to say is this:

"I don't know who got the idea that win-98 might have

an upper limit to the number of files on a volume that

it can handle reliably or efficiently."

"I don't know when such an idea was first raised in

a public forum. I don't know if any technical reasons

were speculated as to why there might be such a

limitation."

"All I know is that we are talking about it now, in

this forum, and a methodology was published some

time ago to determine if such a limitation exists."

That's all you have to say. I've already typed it in for you. Just

repeat it in your next reply.

July 20, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:49:11 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to

keyboard and composed:

>MEB wrote:

>

>> Look, that test has ALWAYS been the point

>

>I'm not arguing for or against the existance of the file-count

>limitation.

>

>> without the true results all your postings mean *squat*.

>

>You really don't get it, do you?

>

>Whether or not I or anyone else performs *the test* is one thing.

>

>I'm asking you (or anyone else reading this) to point to where this

>file-count limitation was first propositioned, or by whom. Such

>information would hopefully include a theory as to why win-98 might

>have such a limitation, perhaps descibing the underlying mechanism

>causing the limitation.

>

>I don't think that's a foolish or irrational or pointless question,

>and it can be asked in conjunction with requests to perform *the

>test*. And it's a question that you should be able to answer, given

>that you seem to know so much about this issue. Nobody else here is

>stepping up and offering an answer.

>

>What I have found is this:

>

>- The claimed max number of files per directory is 65535.

>

>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2006/07/WindowsConfidential/

>

>- Max number of files possible using FAT-32: 268,435,437

>

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Design

>

>The number 268,435,437 (max number of files possible under FAT32) is

>equal to 16k x 16k (ie, 16k directories, each with 16k files) or 4k x

>64k (ie - 4k directories, each with 64k files).

>

>A check of one of my win-98 systems shows 4,870 folders and 118k

>files, so clearly FAT-32 can have more than 4k directories, and win-98

>can handle at least that many directories as well.

>

>Again, if there is a source, a document, a person, that claims (or

>theorizes) that win-98 is practically limited to some particular

>number of directories or files per volume, then please post that

>information.

I just posted the following question to alt.msdos.batch:

==================================================================

I'm looking for a batch routine to create a tree of 65536 directories

with 16 at the top level, 256 subdirectories at the next level, 4096

at the next, and finally 65536. The reason is that I wish to test the

hypothesis that there is a limit to the number of directories in a

FAT32 file system.

==================================================================

One person responded with this:

==================================================================

Here you can see Windows properties screenshots showing FAT32

filesystem and the directory count [1,118,480]:

http://guysalias.batcave.net/images/a-lot-of-directories.jpg

FAT32 does not have a limit to the number of files or directories

except that imposed by the size of the drive(number of clusters).

==================================================================

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

July 20, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

news:qds0a3lvjmrahn3p41lh7npmqr9ec4i3v2@4ax.com...

| On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:49:11 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to

| keyboard and composed:

|

| >MEB wrote:

| >

| >> Look, that test has ALWAYS been the point

| >

| >I'm not arguing for or against the existance of the file-count

| >limitation.

| >

| >> without the true results all your postings mean *squat*.

| >

| >You really don't get it, do you?

| >

| >Whether or not I or anyone else performs *the test* is one thing.

| >

| >I'm asking you (or anyone else reading this) to point to where this

| >file-count limitation was first propositioned, or by whom. Such

| >information would hopefully include a theory as to why win-98 might

| >have such a limitation, perhaps descibing the underlying mechanism

| >causing the limitation.

| >

| >I don't think that's a foolish or irrational or pointless question,

| >and it can be asked in conjunction with requests to perform *the

| >test*. And it's a question that you should be able to answer, given

| >that you seem to know so much about this issue. Nobody else here is

| >stepping up and offering an answer.

| >

| >What I have found is this:

| >

| >- The claimed max number of files per directory is 65535.

| >

|

>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2006/07/WindowsConfident

ial/

| >

| >- Max number of files possible using FAT-32: 268,435,437

| >

| >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Design

| >

| >The number 268,435,437 (max number of files possible under FAT32) is

| >equal to 16k x 16k (ie, 16k directories, each with 16k files) or 4k x

| >64k (ie - 4k directories, each with 64k files).

| >

| >A check of one of my win-98 systems shows 4,870 folders and 118k

| >files, so clearly FAT-32 can have more than 4k directories, and win-98

| >can handle at least that many directories as well.

| >

| >Again, if there is a source, a document, a person, that claims (or

| >theorizes) that win-98 is practically limited to some particular

| >number of directories or files per volume, then please post that

| >information.

|

| I just posted the following question to alt.msdos.batch:

|

| ==================================================================

| I'm looking for a batch routine to create a tree of 65536 directories

| with 16 at the top level, 256 subdirectories at the next level, 4096

| at the next, and finally 65536. The reason is that I wish to test the

| hypothesis that there is a limit to the number of directories in a

| FAT32 file system.

| ==================================================================

|

| One person responded with this:

|

| ==================================================================

| Here you can see Windows properties screenshots showing FAT32

| filesystem and the directory count [1,118,480]:

|

| http://guysalias.batcave.net/images/a-lot-of-directories.jpg

|

| FAT32 does not have a limit to the number of files or directories

| except that imposed by the size of the drive(number of clusters).

| ==================================================================

|

| - Franc Zabkar

| --

| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Excellent, part of an answer with test results. Though distinctly limited.

It shows ONLY a 4.87 gig drive/partition and just 1,118,480 folders. It

also fails to show exactly which OS was used in testing.

There is the inclusion of the hardware tag and sharing [indicating

networking], bring some special aspects which may have been involved. SO is

or was this 98 or is this an NT aspect which handles the Fat [and drives] in

a different fashion?

A single partition on a 320 [or the 127 per the other discussion] gig drive

would potentially have how many using that same test?

SO did you find any test results:

1. showing usage of 98 showing any physical manipulations; and,

2. usage on a DAILY BASIS, e.g. the normal cut/paste, delete, move,

yada-yada, of the potential hundreds of millions of files and directories on

drives; and

3. which exceed the 128 gig purported limitations, and

4. partitioned as a single drive running 98 exclusively, and

5. that might be found during usage over extended periods, and

6. in a situation of such daily usage and/or file serving/storage stature,

and

7. including of course the non-standard 4kb aspect which was purported as

non-issue?

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

July 20, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

A CORRECTION the segment which reads:

A single partition on a 320 [or the 127 per the other discussion] gig drive

would potentially have how many using that same test?

SHOULD READ for clarification:

A single partition on a 320 [or 127 per the other discussion] gig drive

would potentially have how many files and folders using that same test to

fill the drive?

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

July 20, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:uFS78WuyHHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| A CORRECTION the segment which reads:

|

| A single partition on a 320 [or the 127 per the other discussion] gig

drive

| would potentially have how many using that same test?

|

| SHOULD READ for clarification:

|

| A single partition on a 320 [or 127 per the other discussion] gig drive

| would potentially have how many files and folders using that same test to

| fill the drive?

|

| --

| MEB

| ________

|

ADDENDUM: so these issues need not be separately addressed in some other

discussion or later here:

It would also be poignant to your [Franc] usage, and the testing and or

purported results, to have:

A. the hardware/chipset and other information which purports to allow such

usage. related to the intended use and/or to support the findings;

B. IN ADDITION to information which may also have effect such as:

1. Any.system file replacements, examples: shell32, kernel32, user, browser

dlls, etc..; and whether IE is installed and what version, and update

history to the testing system(s).

2. Any registry tweaks or other like activities such as: shell replacements,

explorer replacements, etc. which also may have an effect.

3. What was used in the fdisk and formatting process, and cluster size, etc.

pursuant those activities.

4. Tools/applications for routine disk maintenance of these large

disks/partitions.

BTW Franc, I have no intention of conversing with 98 Guy on any more related

issues or in this discussion, If you or others wish to do so then .....

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

July 21, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:49:11 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to

keyboard and composed:

>What I have found is this:

>- The claimed max number of files per directory is 65535.

>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2006/07/WindowsConfidential/

The limit appears to be 65534, but who's counting:

http://guysalias.batcave.net/images/65534-entries.jpg

In alt.msdos.batch, [a different?] Guy writes:

=================================================================

I think...

There is a limit to the number of entries in a given directory,

whether root or a subdirectory. That limit is 65,534 entries or less

if LFNs.

Let's see...

FOR /L %%I IN (1,1,66000) DO ECHO.>%%I.TXT

DIR G:\

[...]

65533 File(s) 131,106 bytes

0 Dir(s) 4,966,756,352 bytes free

65533 Files + RECYCLER = 65,534 entries

=================================================================

He is using an NT class OS, not Win9x, but I can't see how this would

alter the result. His test uses 8.3 filenames which would require the

least space.

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

July 22, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

<

<BTW Franc, I have no intention of conversing with 98 Guy on <any more

--

MEB

*Not* likely MEB! Whew

--

HTH,

Curt

Windows Support Center

http://www.aumha.org

Practically Nerded,...

http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:uyMPQhwyHHA.1576@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

|

| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| news:uFS78WuyHHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

|| A CORRECTION the segment which reads:

||

|| A single partition on a 320 [or the 127 per the other discussion] gig

| drive

|| would potentially have how many using that same test?

||

|| SHOULD READ for clarification:

||

|| A single partition on a 320 [or 127 per the other discussion] gig drive

|| would potentially have how many files and folders using that same test to

|| fill the drive?

||

|| --

|| MEB

|| ________

||

|

| ADDENDUM: so these issues need not be separately addressed in some other

| discussion or later here:

|

| It would also be poignant to your [Franc] usage, and the testing and or

| purported results, to have:

|

| A. the hardware/chipset and other information which purports to allow such

| usage. related to the intended use and/or to support the findings;

|

| B. IN ADDITION to information which may also have effect such as:

|

| 1. Any.system file replacements, examples: shell32, kernel32, user,

browser

| dlls, etc..; and whether IE is installed and what version, and update

| history to the testing system(s).

|

| 2. Any registry tweaks or other like activities such as: shell

replacements,

| explorer replacements, etc. which also may have an effect.

|

| 3. What was used in the fdisk and formatting process, and cluster size,

etc.

| pursuant those activities.

|

| 4. Tools/applications for routine disk maintenance of these large

| disks/partitions.

|

| BTW Franc, I have no intention of conversing with 98 Guy on any more

|

| --

| MEB

| http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| ________

|

July 23, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

> Look dude, I'd plonk your stupid stuff, but then you would have free range

> here...

>

> These are the EXACT questions you asked and were answered repeatedly in

ALL

> your discussions

MEB, i've lurked and lurked, and among others i believe the both

of you to be Excellent procurators of win98.

buuuut, MEB, you have let me down by going for a humans throat

instead of the 'ms supplied informations throat'.

98Guy is as always on track,, this due to his demeanor of seeking truth,

i support him 100%.

MEB, you too are always on track, so why not try to 'merge' with 98guy

for a while and Co-produce the truths...... surely it has to be a

worthy challenge? a grand challenge to both! who knows, you could

both come out the other end as friends, and that is a Win situation in

any wise mans language.

I support you both, you both have qualities.

Sign In

Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

Recommended Posts

Guest Franc Zabkar

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest MEB

Guest Ingeborg

Guest Curt Christianson

Guest 98 Guy

Guest Ingeborg

Guest Franc Zabkar

Guest Franc Zabkar

Guest Ingeborg

Guest MEB

Guest 98 Guy

Guest MEB

Guest MEB

Guest 98 Guy

Guest MEB

Guest 98 Guy

Guest MEB

Guest 98 Guy

Guest Franc Zabkar

Guest MEB

Guest MEB

Guest MEB

Guest Franc Zabkar

Guest Curt Christianson

Guest wheely

Similar Content

External monitor sound not recognized

Play sound simultaneously through both Internal Speakers and External USB Soundcard

USB Mouse unresponsive

external ssd keeps disconnecting is there a way to fix it ?

Install Operating System From USB Thumb Drive

Browse

Activity

Site Info