Re: [OFFTOPIC] Filling the FAT (was: playing CDROM music questions)
On Tue 09 Jan 2024 at 10:57:29 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >>What are you talking about? FAT does not get “overloaded” by long
> >>filenames.
> > Seen it happen;
>
> I have serious doubts about the "it".
>
> > Long filenames, mixed case, and files saved at the beginning of
> > a session of copying multiple files would be lost because the FAT was
> > filled, and overwritten from the start by files added later in
> > the session.
>
> The FAT doesn't contain file names. It has a fixed size and contains
> one "word" per block in the partition, and that word indicates simply if
> the corresponding block is free or not, and if not, what is the next
> block of the corresponding "file" (where that "file" may be also
> something like a directory).
>
> The FAT doesn't get filled/emptied: it has the same size whether the
> partition is empty or full, because the partition contains a fixed
> number of blocks.
>
> So, I don't doubt you have seen what you have seen, but whatever you
> have seen was not due to "the FAT was filled".
I would agree with that. I don't follow the evolution of FAT,
but what seems most likely is that the root directory filled up.
The size of that is fixed when formatted, at least up to FAT16.
Long filenames will eat it up more quickly still. Create
subdirectories and the problem goes away.
With large sticks nowadays, the problem revolves more around the
/time/ it takes to read huge subdirectories. I don't know what
the limitations on FAT32 root directory sizes are.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: