Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:54:36 +0200 | From | Marc Mutz <> | Subject | Re: Partition table sux |
| |
Riley Williams wrote: > > Hi David. > > >> Once 2 TB looked almost infinitely large, but today 100 GB is > >> quite common, and we can expect that very soon this 2 TB will be > >> a real limit. In other words, this old ugly DOS-type partition > >> table will have to be replaced. > > > At last ! It really sux. > > Do you really believe that M$ will allow it to go away? In my opinion, > they're too committed to backwards-compatibility for that. > > What I *CAN* see happenning is for FAT28/32 (whatever) getting larger > clusters for the FAT to refer to, thus pushing that limit upwards as > well. Here's my calculations relating to this: > <snipped FAT part. size breakdown> > > Either way, the limit is considerably higher than the 2 Terabytes > mentioned in the original postee's message. > 1.) The original poster was talking about the DOS partition table, not max. size of filesystems. As a solution to that: with Linux supporting so many partitioning formats, there must be one that supports more than 2TB?
2.) AFAICR from my Atari days, FAT12/16 had _many_ (ie. more than necessary) 'reserved cluster numbers', indiating end of FAT chain or defect clusters. I wonder if the missing 4 bits are dedicated to this purpose?
Marc
-- Marc Mutz <Marc@Mutz.com> http://marc.mutz.com/ Unversity of Bielefeld, Dep. of Mathematics / Dep. of Physics
PGP-keyID's: 0xd46ce9ab (RSA), 0x7ae55b9e (DSS/DH)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |