Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpsgwp!plim From: plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: How do FAT tables differ between DOS 3.2 and DOS 4.x? Message-ID: <3360003@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com> Date: 22 Nov 90 03:05:42 GMT References: <1990Nov19.221542.5827@odetics.com> Organization: HP Singapore IC Design Ctr Lines: 49 / frank@odetics.com (Frank Merrow) / 6:15 am Nov 20, 1990 / writes: > My machine was purchased long enough ago that DOS 3.2 was the best available > at the time. Even though I have a 40Meg drive I have never been able > to get at more than 32Megs of it. I was considering purchasing DOS 4.x to > get at the extra 8Megs, but I got to looking at the way the drive is currently > defined. Since the 32Meg partition has (almost exactly) 16K clusters in it > seems likely that the DOS 3.2 limitation was 16K clusters in a partition. > What do you mean 16K clusters ? The last time I use DOS 3.2 was about 3 years ago. I seems to remember that DOS 3.2 allocates 2K per cluster for hard disk size > 16 MB and (<= 32 MB). ie. 16 bit FAT. For hard disk size <= 16 MB, DOS chooses 12 bit FAT and you get 4 K per cluster. For DOS 4.x, my experience is that with partition > 32 MB <= 128 MB, you get 2K cluster; > 128 MB <= 256 MB, you get 4 K cluster; and > 256 MB and <= 512 MB, you get 8 K cluster. > THE QUESTION: > > I have LOTS of small files. If DOS 4.x allows larger partitions by giving > me 4k (or more) clusters instead of the 2k I have now, I will likely NOT > get ANY benifit out of the larger partition. Does DOS 4.x get at the extra > space with a bigger FAT table (more clusters) or by bigger clusters? Also > Seems like you should be okay if you have <= 128 MB disk. My experience is with HP's MS-DOS 4.01. So, your mileage might vary --- I say this because nobody seems to agree on what is the largest disk DOS 4.x can accomodate (so .... something is unknown). > my "Mace Utilities" dates from this time as well. Does anyone know off hand > if an "older" version of Mace can handle DOS 4.x partitions, or will I need > to update/repurchase? > Never use MACE, but I would try the old version with data which I don't mind losing. Regards, . .. ... .- -> -->## Life is fast enough as it is ........ Peter Lim. ## .... DON'T PUSH IT !! >>>-------, ########################################### : E-mail: plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM Snail-mail: Hewlett Packard Singapore, : Tel: (065)-279-2289 (ICDS, ICS) | Telnet: 520-2289 1150 Depot Road, __\@/__ Singapore 0410. SPLAT ! #include