File size limit in FAT 32?

[Brian Matthews]

Not in my experience.

Depends on the model of the TV. Both my LG Blu-Ray player and my
Toshiba TV have USB ports. Both of them will play .avi files whether
the thumb drive is formatted in either NTFS or Fat32. You need to
check with your TV manufacturer, with the TV model number.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Depends on the model of the TV. Both my LG Blu-Ray player and my
Toshiba TV have USB ports. Both of them will play .avi files whether
the thumb drive is formatted in either NTFS or Fat32. You need to
check with your TV manufacturer, with the TV model number.

Or just try it...

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Chris S. wrote:

...

"The maximum possible size for a file on a FAT32 volume is 4 GB
minus 1 byte or 4 294
967 295 (232?1) bytes. This limit is a consequence of the file
length entry in the
directory table and would also affect huge FAT16 partitions with
a
sufficient sector
size.[1] Video applications, large databases, and some other
software easily exceed
this limit. Larger files require another filesystem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table

Stay away from Andy's "PC Shop"

Chris

Chris, don't believe everything you see in print. The earliest
Windows 32 systems did not use the high order bit in the FAT
table,
thus limiting the size to virtually 2GB. So while the maximum
"possible" is indeed about 4 GB, the maximum in Win32 is 2
Gigabytes.

Citation please. I'm unable to find a reference that supports
this.
Every non-anecdotal reference to file size limitations in FAT32 are
either 2^32-1 bytes or 4GB -1 (or 2) bytes. This also matches my
experience with databases under various flavors of Windows and file
systems, ranging from Win95 through Win7 and FAT16 through
whateverversionof NTFS we are on now... The only time I've
encountered a 2GB file size limitation is with FAT16 under Win9x
(where the partition size is limited to 2GB) and using NFS v2 and
earlier.

I am Happy to supply a citation, which is a very reasonable request.

"You cannot create a file larger than (2^32)-1 bytes (this is one
byte less than 4 GB) on a FAT32 partition."
- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463

This is a microsoft implementation limit.

Which of course agrees with what I and others have been saying all
along.

Thank you for confirming that you were mistaken.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Chris S. wrote:

...

"The maximum possible size for a file on a FAT32 volume is 4 GB
minus 1 byte or 4 294
967 295 (232?1) bytes. This limit is a consequence of the file
length entry in the
directory table and would also affect huge FAT16 partitions with
a
sufficient sector
size.[1] Video applications, large databases, and some other
software easily exceed
this limit. Larger files require another filesystem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table

Stay away from Andy's "PC Shop"

Chris

Chris, don't believe everything you see in print. The earliest
Windows 32 systems did not use the high order bit in the FAT
table,
thus limiting the size to virtually 2GB. So while the maximum
"possible" is indeed about 4 GB, the maximum in Win32 is 2
Gigabytes.


Citation please. I'm unable to find a reference that supports
this.
Every non-anecdotal reference to file size limitations in FAT32
are
either 2^32-1 bytes or 4GB -1 (or 2) bytes. This also matches my
experience with databases under various flavors of Windows and
file
systems, ranging from Win95 through Win7 and FAT16 through
whateverversionof NTFS we are on now... The only time I've
encountered a 2GB file size limitation is with FAT16 under Win9x
(where the partition size is limited to 2GB) and using NFS v2 and
earlier.

I am Happy to supply a citation, which is a very reasonable
request.

"You cannot create a file larger than (2^32)-1 bytes (this is one
byte less than 4
GB) on a FAT32 partition."
- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463

This is a microsoft implementation limit.

Oops! I misread, and apologize because I was thinking FAT16 after
all!

http://www.genie9.com/support/kb/KnowledgeArticle.aspx?KBID=113+

Apology accepted. We all make mistakes, being able to admit them and
learn from the experience is what counts.

 

[me again]

Chris S. wrote:

...

"The maximum possible size for a file on a FAT32 volume is 4 GB
minus 1 byte or 4 294
967 295 (232?1) bytes. This limit is a consequence of the file
length entry in the
directory table and would also affect huge FAT16 partitions with
a
sufficient sector
size.[1] Video applications, large databases, and some other
software easily exceed
this limit. Larger files require another filesystem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table

Stay away from Andy's "PC Shop"

Chris

Chris, don't believe everything you see in print. The earliest
Windows 32 systems did not use the high order bit in the FAT
table,
thus limiting the size to virtually 2GB. So while the maximum
"possible" is indeed about 4 GB, the maximum in Win32 is 2
Gigabytes.


Citation please. I'm unable to find a reference that supports
this.
Every non-anecdotal reference to file size limitations in FAT32 are
either 2^32-1 bytes or 4GB -1 (or 2) bytes. This also matches my
experience with databases under various flavors of Windows and file
systems, ranging from Win95 through Win7 and FAT16 through
whateverversionof NTFS we are on now... The only time I've
encountered a 2GB file size limitation is with FAT16 under Win9x
(where the partition size is limited to 2GB) and using NFS v2 and
earlier.

I am Happy to supply a citation, which is a very reasonable request.

"You cannot create a file larger than (2^32)-1 bytes (this is one
byte less than 4 GB) on a FAT32 partition."
- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463

This is a microsoft implementation limit.

Which of course agrees with what I and others have been saying all
along.

Thank you for confirming that you were mistaken.

You're welcome. However, the file size limit IS 2GB in the context of a DVD.

I had forgotten the 'context':

"If your temporary folder is on a drive that has FAT 32 file system, GBM will not be
able to backup the temporary files to the temporary location before burning to DVD,
as FAT 32 has a file size limitation that will prevent loading files to the drive
that exceed 2GB. "

- http://www.genie9.com/Support/KB/KnowledgeArticle.aspx?KBID=114+

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Chris S. wrote:

...

"The maximum possible size for a file on a FAT32 volume is 4 GB
minus 1 byte or 4 294
967 295 (232?1) bytes. This limit is a consequence of the file
length entry in the
directory table and would also affect huge FAT16 partitions
with
a
sufficient sector
size.[1] Video applications, large databases, and some other
software easily exceed
this limit. Larger files require another filesystem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table

Stay away from Andy's "PC Shop"

Chris

Chris, don't believe everything you see in print. The earliest
Windows 32 systems did not use the high order bit in the FAT
table,
thus limiting the size to virtually 2GB. So while the maximum
"possible" is indeed about 4 GB, the maximum in Win32 is 2
Gigabytes.


Citation please. I'm unable to find a reference that supports
this.
Every non-anecdotal reference to file size limitations in FAT32
are
either 2^32-1 bytes or 4GB -1 (or 2) bytes. This also matches my
experience with databases under various flavors of Windows and
file
systems, ranging from Win95 through Win7 and FAT16 through
whateverversionof NTFS we are on now... The only time I've
encountered a 2GB file size limitation is with FAT16 under Win9x
(where the partition size is limited to 2GB) and using NFS v2 and
earlier.



I am Happy to supply a citation, which is a very reasonable
request.

"You cannot create a file larger than (2^32)-1 bytes (this is one
byte less than 4 GB) on a FAT32 partition."
- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463

This is a microsoft implementation limit.

Which of course agrees with what I and others have been saying all
along.

Thank you for confirming that you were mistaken.

You're welcome. However, the file size limit IS 2GB in the context
of a DVD.

I had forgotten the 'context':

"If your temporary folder is on a drive that has FAT 32 file system,
GBM will not be able to backup the temporary files to the temporary
location before burning to DVD, as FAT 32 has a file size limitation
that will prevent loading files to the drive that exceed 2GB. "

- http://www.genie9.com/Support/KB/KnowledgeArticle.aspx?KBID=114+

Sounds like a software-specific limitation, probably due to using a
signed rather than unsigned 32bit integer. Also, since DVDs don't use
FAT32 the distinction is irrelevant - as I understand it, the UDF file
system used by DVDs has something like a 16 exabyte file size limit.

--
Zaphod

Arthur Dent, speaking to Trillian about Zaphod:
"So, two heads is what does it for a girl?"
"...Anything else he's got two of?"

 

[Brian Matthews]

Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Chris S. wrote:

...

"The maximum possible size for a file on a FAT32 volume is 4 GB
minus 1 byte or 4 294
967 295 (232?1) bytes. This limit is a consequence of the file
length entry in the
directory table and would also affect huge FAT16 partitions
with
a
sufficient sector
size.[1] Video applications, large databases, and some other
software easily exceed
this limit. Larger files require another filesystem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table

Stay away from Andy's "PC Shop"

Chris

Chris, don't believe everything you see in print. The earliest
Windows 32 systems did not use the high order bit in the FAT
table,
thus limiting the size to virtually 2GB. So while the maximum
"possible" is indeed about 4 GB, the maximum in Win32 is 2
Gigabytes.


Citation please. I'm unable to find a reference that supports
this.
Every non-anecdotal reference to file size limitations in FAT32
are
either 2^32-1 bytes or 4GB -1 (or 2) bytes. This also matches my
experience with databases under various flavors of Windows and
file
systems, ranging from Win95 through Win7 and FAT16 through
whateverversionof NTFS we are on now... The only time I've
encountered a 2GB file size limitation is with FAT16 under Win9x
(where the partition size is limited to 2GB) and using NFS v2 and
earlier.



I am Happy to supply a citation, which is a very reasonable
request.

"You cannot create a file larger than (2^32)-1 bytes (this is one
byte less than 4 GB) on a FAT32 partition."
- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463

This is a microsoft implementation limit.

Which of course agrees with what I and others have been saying all
along.

Thank you for confirming that you were mistaken.

You're welcome. However, the file size limit IS 2GB in the context
of a DVD.

I had forgotten the 'context':

"If your temporary folder is on a drive that has FAT 32 file system,
GBM will not be able to backup the temporary files to the temporary
location before burning to DVD, as FAT 32 has a file size limitation
that will prevent loading files to the drive that exceed 2GB. "

- http://www.genie9.com/Support/KB/KnowledgeArticle.aspx?KBID=114+

Sounds like a software-specific limitation, probably due to using a
signed rather than unsigned 32bit integer. Also, since DVDs don't use
FAT32 the distinction is irrelevant - as I understand it, the UDF file
system used by DVDs has something like a 16 exabyte file size limit.

Yes, it does sound like a software issue. I've burned DVD images,
using Nero, that were close to 4 GB on a FAT32 partition.

I remember the days of FAT16. This file system had a limit of 2 GB per
partition. Or was the version of Windows at the time? MS came out with
a fix to let you make the partition bigger.

 

[Brian Matthews]

Or just try it..

LMAO. Yes, I guess that way would be much, much easier.
I never checked my TV or DVD with either file system because I read
the manual on both of them before I bought them. And in the USB
section, it stated that the USB port would work with either a FAT32 or
NTFS file system. Of course, they covered their butts by saying "some"
USB products may not work. But, I've used several USB sticks and both
file systems worked fine. I even have a 500GB external HDD, in an
enclosure, that works.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I remember the days of FAT16. This file system had a limit of 2 GB
per
partition. Or was the version of Windows at the time? MS came out
with
a fix to let you make the partition bigger.

Windows 95/98/ME were limited to 2GB FAT32 partitions, but Windows
2000/XP/etc. could handle 4GB FAT32 partitions. I never understood
(or investigated) the reasons why, but that's how it worked anyway.

--
Zaphod

Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster: A cocktail based on Janx Spirit.
The effect of one is like having your brain smashed out
by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick.

 

[Tim Slattery]

Windows 95/98/ME were limited to 2GB FAT32 partitions, but Windows
2000/XP/etc. could handle 4GB FAT32 partitions. I never understood
(or investigated) the reasons why, but that's how it worked anyway.

There's something wrong with that. FAT32 in XP can handle partitions
up to 8TB (not that that would be a good idea at all). XP won't
create a FAT32 partition larger than - I think - 40GB, but it will use
huge partitions created elsewhere.

And I don't remember FAT32 ever being limited to 2GB partitions, that
was a FAT16 limit.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

LMAO. Yes, I guess that way would be much, much easier.
I never checked my TV or DVD with either file system because I read
the manual on both of them before I bought them. And in the USB
section, it stated that the USB port would work with either a FAT32 or
NTFS file system. Of course, they covered their butts by saying "some"
USB products may not work. But, I've used several USB sticks and both
file systems worked fine. I even have a 500GB external HDD, in an
enclosure, that works.

Thanks for the report - good to know.

My suggestion was based on the idea that the experiment could be done
quicker than finding the documentation

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

There's something wrong with that. FAT32 in XP can handle partitions
up to 8TB (not that that would be a good idea at all). XP won't
create a FAT32 partition larger than - I think - 40GB, but it will
use
huge partitions created elsewhere.

And I don't remember FAT32 ever being limited to 2GB partitions,
that
was a FAT16 limit.

Sorry, I mis-spoke - I was indeed talking about the FAT16 limit, which
should have been clear from the context of the post I was replying to.

 

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

There's something wrong with that. FAT32 in XP can handle partitions
up to 8TB (not that that would be a good idea at all). XP won't
create a FAT32 partition larger than - I think - 40GB, but it will use
huge partitions created elsewhere.

They are trying to push you towards their much more proprietary exFAT, and
maybe NTFS, file systems that they hope will earn them licensing fees when
hardware manufacturers and other OS suppliers are forced to implement them.

 

[me again]

Thanks for the report - good to know.

My suggestion was based on the idea that the experiment could be done
quicker than finding the documentation

Some memory sticks / thumb drives have the same issue as DVDs:
However, the file size limit IS 2GB in the context of a DVD.

"If your temporary folder is on a drive that has FAT 32 file system, GBM will not be
able to backup the temporary files to the temporary location before burning to DVD,
as FAT 32 has a file size limitation that will prevent loading files to the drive
that exceed 2GB. "

- http://www.genie9.com/Support/KB/KnowledgeArticle.aspx?KBID=114+

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Some memory sticks / thumb drives have the same issue as DVDs:
However, the file size limit IS 2GB in the context of a DVD.

"If your temporary folder is on a drive that has FAT 32 file system,
GBM will not be able to backup the temporary files to the temporary
location before burning to DVD, as FAT 32 has a file size limitation
that will prevent loading files to the drive that exceed 2GB. "

- http://www.genie9.com/Support/KB/KnowledgeArticle.aspx?KBID=114+

This has *nothing* to do with a file size limit of a memory
stick/thumb drive, FAT32 or the DVD file system - it has everything to
do with an apparent limitation of the *software*, or that they have
the same misconception as you about the maximum file size under the
FAT32 file system.

Once and for all, FAT32 has a 4GB file size limit and the DVD file
system (UDF) can support file sizes of 16EB (exabytes) and thumb
drives are only limited by their size and the file system they happen
to be formatted with.

--
Zaphod

Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster: A cocktail based on Janx Spirit.
The effect of one is like having your brain smashed out
by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

They are trying to push you towards their much more proprietary
exFAT, and maybe NTFS, file systems that they hope will earn them
licensing fees when hardware manufacturers and other OS suppliers
are forced to implement them.

See my reply to Tim Slattery on the 15th, I misspoke and intended to
say that those partition size limits were FAT16, not FAT32.

 

[Char Jackson]

Some memory sticks / thumb drives have the same issue as DVDs:

That's simply not true.

However, the file size limit IS 2GB in the context of a DVD.

That's absolutely not true.

"If your temporary folder is on a drive that has FAT 32 file system, GBM will not be
able to backup the temporary files to the temporary location before burning to DVD,
as FAT 32 has a file size limitation that will prevent loading files to the drive
that exceed 2GB. "

- http://www.genie9.com/Support/KB/KnowledgeArticle.aspx?KBID=114+

And that little tidbit of information apparently applies to a single
application. FAT32 has a file size limitation of 4GB, (actually 4GB
minus 1 byte, but who's counting.)

Please stop repeating your incorrect information.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Some memory sticks / thumb drives have the same issue as DVDs:
However, the file size limit IS 2GB in the context of a DVD.

"If your temporary folder is on a drive that has FAT 32 file system, GBM will not be
able to backup the temporary files to the temporary location before burning to DVD,
as FAT 32 has a file size limitation that will prevent loading files to the drive
that exceed 2GB. "

- http://www.genie9.com/Support/KB/KnowledgeArticle.aspx?KBID=114+

I'd like to thank Char and Zaphod for their appropriate replies, better
than anything I might have said

 

[Char Jackson]

I'd like to thank Char and Zaphod for their appropriate replies, better
than anything I might have said

I've seen some of your replies and I've enjoyed them.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I'd like to thank Char and Zaphod for their appropriate replies,
better
than anything I might have said

You are welcome, but I'm not sure that is accurate - I've quite
enjoyed they way you communicate in these groups.