Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
From: Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: DOS 4.01 cluster size
Message-ID: <25c97ed6@ralf>
Date: 2 Feb 90 11:36:38 GMT
Sender: ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science
Lines: 18
In-Reply-To: <5190073@hplsla.HP.COM>

In article <5190073@hplsla.HP.COM>, kens@hplsla.HP.COM (Ken Snyder) wrote:
}The last few days there has been a discussion about DOS 4.01 using 4k cluster
}sizes.  Some alluded to the fact that if you dropped the size of a partition
}the cluster size would drop to 2k (since there is a 64k limit on some table
}somewhere).  Well, last night I tried reformatting (using FDISK) a 150Mbyte
}drive into a 128Mbyte partition and when it was all said and done I still
}had 4k clusters.  So how do I get DOS to give me 2k clusters?

The limit is actually 64K-18 (yes, eighteen).  If you formatted to exactly
128M, you still had too many clusters for 2K clusters.	Try 127M instead.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=- 412-268-3053 (school) -=- FAX: ask
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
"How to Prove It" by Dana Angluin              Disclaimer? I claimed something?
14. proof by importance:
    A large body of useful consequences all follow from the proposition in
    question.