Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #175556 > unrolled thread

OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-08 13:50 +0100
    Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory Charlie Kravetz <cjk@teamcharliesangels.com> - 2016-12-08 15:40 +0100
    Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-12-08 19:00 +0100
      Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-08 22:00 +0100

#175556 — OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory

I've been googling to try to answer this question, so far, no luck.

I recall that there is (or used to be?) a limit on the number of files in the 
top level directory of a FAT32 (or 16?) partition / drive.  If you needed to 
have more files in a directory, you had to create a subdirectory (and, as I 
recall, there was no limit on the number of files in a subdirectory).

Does anybody else (reading this) recall that, and recall more details, like 
the maximum number of files and which FAT systems (32 or 16) this applied to, 
and, further, is it still a limit on FAT32?

The limit might have existed in FAT12 as well (or some similar limit), but as 
I recall it was in FAT16 or later.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#175565

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 07:42:33 -0500
rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

>I've been googling to try to answer this question, so far, no luck.
>
>I recall that there is (or used to be?) a limit on the number of files in the 
>top level directory of a FAT32 (or 16?) partition / drive.  If you needed to 
>have more files in a directory, you had to create a subdirectory (and, as I 
>recall, there was no limit on the number of files in a subdirectory).
>
>Does anybody else (reading this) recall that, and recall more details, like 
>the maximum number of files and which FAT systems (32 or 16) this applied to, 
>and, further, is it still a limit on FAT32?
>
>The limit might have existed in FAT12 as well (or some similar limit), but as 
>I recall it was in FAT16 or later.
>

You are correct in the limit in the root directory. I thought the limit
was 128 files/directories, but I could be wrong. I believe the limit
was when using FAT 16. FAT 32 raised this limit, but I don't remember
the numbers, since by then I was using sub-directories to insure never
hitting the limit. 

- -- 
Charlie Kravetz
Linux Registered User Number 425914
[http://linuxcounter.net/user/425914.html]
Never let anyone steal your DREAM.   [http://keepingdreams.com]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEG5QK93YKrQMH22ZTiq6LjqbJ0IAFAlhJasgACgkQiq6LjqbJ
0ICJawgAmykBStEEUV6pezM8Txi4qS29U0PvjMUSKK7mHsLOw1JnXcHqxMoJpOsh
N6SQ76C2J+1QPvKHUdyYuR8ZecoKxaehyEXPccYtV8eMSvPVo8CWXE4rjjdiAxgP
Ww4IknQJWCc8Qsh2BG8F6FglVx+RS/ij62phTT/qOf/2aPG89T/w3Psi/acGt2Y9
+XwMoKGKrqbDRK8NzyWk0fb5XYqvqvYmzCDGGvsCtWzXswsJFzRan18YnFcB43KN
ZggbqgG8YGDWMFxIJcsuMPKrOt5fCLLgysNTcAEeBhlNIUPf0Cl9ZFPUkXqWqc7Y
cgUo0ZuwR8nCUVfXDqrBFvKgFlOMgA==
=L0dZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175571

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> Does anybody else (reading this) recall that, and recall more details, like 
> the maximum number of files and which FAT systems (32 or 16) this applied to, 
> and, further, is it still a limit on FAT32?

Ugh. Well, for FAT32, "it depends" on the implementation, but it is not
unlimited.

Even for FAT12/16, the number of entries in the root directory region
could be changed at filesystem creation time (within some limits).
OTOH, when you use VFAT on top, it can consume more than one "directory
entry" per file...

So you never know for sure with FAT12/16/32 + VFAT ;-)

Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_the_FAT_file_system

> The limit might have existed in FAT12 as well (or some similar limit), but as 
> I recall it was in FAT16 or later.

FAT32 has its own limits, and you should consider that particular
implementations will also have extra limits, especially on embedded
devices.

-- 
  Henrique Holschuh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175574

On Thursday, December 08, 2016 12:49:42 PM Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2016, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

...

> Ugh. Well, for FAT32, "it depends" on the implementation, but it is not
> unlimited.
> 
> Even for FAT12/16, the number of entries in the root directory region
> could be changed at filesystem creation time (within some limits).
> OTOH, when you use VFAT on top, it can consume more than one "directory
> entry" per file...
> 
> So you never know for sure with FAT12/16/32 + VFAT ;-)
> 
> Here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_the_FAT_file_system
> 
> > The limit might have existed in FAT12 as well (or some similar limit),
> > but as I recall it was in FAT16 or later.
> 
> FAT32 has its own limits, and you should consider that particular
> implementations will also have extra limits, especially on embedded
> devices.

Thanks very much to all who replied!

The intended use is on an embedded device (old photo frame) for which we don't 
have the manual, I guess we'll find out when we hit the limit...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web