Eben King wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, michael hast wrote:
>
>> Eben King wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Now I've got everything I can get, and it's time to put it back.
>>> NTFS writing is unreliable and new, so I chose FAT (vfat). Had to
>>> make 3 primary + virtual partitions, as XP's formatter won't make a
>>> 128 GiB FAT partition (W98's will, but I can't get the drive to show
>>> up in W98).
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Why don't you write a big partition with an open-source partitioner?
>> Will the partitioner on the Debian installer or QTParted not do that?
>
>
> I can make a big partition, no problem. But FAT32 doesn't go >128
> GiB. (There's only 70-something GiB of data anyway counting wasted
> allocation space, so I could split the disk half FAT and half NTFS.)
> Two filesystems are better than 5, so yeah, that'd be an improvement.
>
> Plus, what can I use to lay down a FAT filesystem? TTBOMK there's no
> mkfs.vfat or similar.
>
> Anyhow, why should I think that FAT written thusly will be accessed
> faster than what I have?
>
I should have specified that I didn't think that would fix your speed
problem, but that maybe you could write a bigger partition that way.
I've never tried to put down a partition that big in any format and I
didn't realize that FAT32 won't go bigger than that. Learn something
new everyday, right?
-- --Michael Hast (the evyl robot) I'm not picking my nose. I'm pulling things out of it.----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:35:27 EDT