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

From	rhkramer@gmail.com
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level
Date	2017-01-02 17:40 +0100
Message-ID	<sVdOp-19V-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<sTt1g-4Xg-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sVcIF-jV-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <sVcIF-jV-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

This appears to be a never ending thread. ;-)

I started it, an, for the record, I'm good (I've got a satisfactory answer--it 
seems I can put photos in subdirectories and the photo frame will work its way 
through the subdirectories).  

But, if you (all) are having fun, carry on ;-)


On Monday, January 02, 2017 10:29:16 AM Nicolas George wrote:
> Le tridi 13 nivôse, an CCXXV, Jude DaShiell a écrit :
> > msdos 6.22 which was fat16 had a limit of 112 files in top level
> > directory. Once I tried putting more than that on a floppy disk and
> > couldn't figure why no more would fit until I found this out.  I don't
> > know if the limit got expanded for fat32 and msdos 7
> 
> Will nobody read the darn thread before posting half-wrong statements?
> And possibly check their own facts against reliable sources?
> 
> The limit does not come from the OS, it is coded in the "superblock" of
> the filesystem. It can be configured when creating the filesystem. The
> default is indeed sometimes 112.
> 
> Also, MS-DOS 6.22 "is" not FAT16, that does not mean anything. FAT12,
> FAT16 and FAT32 are three variants of the filesystems with different
> compromises between wasted storage per file and wasted storage globally.
> The tool that creates the filesystem will normally choose the best one
> for a typical use by default. And of course, MS-DOS < 7 did not support
> FAT32.
> 
> Regards,

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