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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #176254

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

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun 01 Jan 2017 at 13:15:11 (+0100), tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 05:14:50PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > On Sat 31 Dec 2016 at 10:35:02 (+0100), tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > Calculemus, as Leibnitz said. A bit of experimental informatics:
> 
> Mpfh. Seems I was a bit boisterous here :)
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > Try this at home. Enjoy.
> > 
> > I did, but I had some difficulty replicating your result. I took a USB
> > stick and put a type c partition on it (mkfs.fat doesn't like writing
> > whole devices). Then:
> 
> Thanks for trying to replicate. Didn't know about the device thing. Will
> try when I've an USB stick which isn't my main backup :)
> 
> > #  mkfs.fat -i 20161231 -n PETROLEUM2G -r 2000 -v /dev/sdb1
> > mkfs.fat 3.0.27 (2014-11-12)
> > Auto-selecting FAT32 for large filesystem
> 
> OK, seems FAT32 has bigger limits (and it's actually selected when
> the medium is big enough).
> 
> > /dev/sdb1 has 62 heads and 62 sectors per track,
> > hidden sectors 0x0800;
> > logical sector size is 512,
> > using 0xf8 media descriptor, with 3891199 sectors;
> > drive number 0x80;
> > filesystem has 2 32-bit FATs and 8 sectors per cluster.
> > FAT size is 3793 sectors, and provides 485447 clusters.
> > There are 32 reserved sectors.
> > Volume ID is 20161231, volume label PETROLEUM2G.
> > # 
> > 
> > I now ran your one-liner and created over 20,000 empty files
> > at top level. So I down-sized with:
> > 
> > # mkfs.fat -F 16 -i 20161231 -n PETROLEUM2G -r 2000 -v /dev/sdb1

This was intended to create a FAT16 filesystem...

> > mkfs.fat 3.0.27 (2014-11-12)
> > /dev/sdb1 has 62 heads and 62 sectors per track,
> > hidden sectors 0x0800;
> > logical sector size is 512,
> > using 0xf8 media descriptor, with 3891199 sectors;
> > drive number 0x80;
> > filesystem has 2 16-bit FATs and 64 sectors per cluster.
> > FAT size is 256 sectors, and provides 60789 clusters.
> > There is 1 reserved sector.
> > Root directory contains 2048 slots and uses 128 sectors.
> > Volume ID is 20161231, volume label PETROLEUM2G.
> > # 
> > 
> > and now at last I could exhaust the top level directory with
> > 1023 entries. As expected, df -h gives
> > /dev/sdb1       1.9G     0  1.9G   0% /media/petroleum2g
> 
> This is very interesting! Seems FAT32 has a limit of 1024 entries
> in a top-level dir. OK, if all else fails, read the instructions :)

... so I think you mean FAT16 here.

> Wikipedia [1] has a very informative page: according to that, on
> FAT12 and FAT16, the root directory is statically allocated, and
> its maximum size is written somewhere in the file system header.
> There are two bytes available for that (and the number encoded
> there is "number of entries"), so that in theory there could be
> up to 65K. Lo and behold, mkfs.vfat *has* a command line parameter
> (-r) to set the number of root directory entries! Of course, I'd
> expect any overall limit on entries per directory to apply here,
> if there is any (couldn't find that out in that short time).
> 
> This all doesn't apply to FAT32 (as you had), where the root
> directory is an ordinary directory. Why you got this 1024 limit
> is thus still a mystery for me.

So no mystery, perhaps.

> > Like Nicolas I couldn't unpick Gene's rant about the subject as he
> > doesn't seem to distinguish between DOS, the OS, and FAT, the
> > filesystem used by DOS. But I wouldn't expect anyone using DOS
> > seriously to need to have many files in top level directories.
> > If the OP is lucky, the photo frame might create a subdirectory
> > like most cameras/phones etc do, or, like some MP3 players, just
> > display everything it encounters regardless of the subdirectory
> > involved.
> 
> Yeah, exactly. The only reason for FAT to exist these days is
> compatibility, and then it makes sense to be especially conservative
> (e.g. there's no limit to directory nesting depth, but most
> implementations die on a path which is too long).
> 
> Anyway, thanks for digging further!
> 
> regards
> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_the_FAT_file_system

Cheers,
David.

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 07:40 +0100
  Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-12-31 10:40 +0100
    Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-12-31 14:00 +0100
      Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-12-31 14:10 +0100
        Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-12-31 15:00 +0100
          Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-12-31 15:20 +0100
            Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-12-31 16:40 +0100
          Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-12-31 16:40 +0100
        Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-12-31 16:30 +0100
    Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-01 00:30 +0100
      Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-01-01 13:20 +0100
        Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 15:40 +0100
          Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2017-01-02 16:30 +0100
            Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-02 16:30 +0100
              Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 17:40 +0100
          Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-01-02 20:50 +0100
    Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 12:50 +0100

csiph-web