Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level
On Saturday 31 December 2016 04:35:02 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Xen wrote:
> > doark@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41:
> > >I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir,
> > > but never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one of their
> > > "Features". The said "Feature" still was there when using ntfs in
> > > XP if I remember correctly.
> >
> > Perhaps it's just because Windows Explorer doesn't deal well with
> > many files. Try to unpack some open source archive of some
> > distributor that had to make their sources open, some 1G archive,
> > and see how it goes. Not recommended :p.
> >
> > Then when you've unpacked it, deleting it takes a few years as well.
> > So imposing a filesystem limit may just have been a way to ensure
> > that their user interface limit is not quickly reached, I don't
> > know.
>
> Calculemus, as Leibnitz said. A bit of experimental informatics:
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=dose bs=4096 count=64
> mkfs.vfat dose
> sudo mkfs.vfat dose
> sudo mount dose /mnt
> for i in $(seq 1 10000) ; do sudo touch /mnt/f.$(printf "%05d" $i)
> || echo "fail $i" ; done
>
> The loop starts failing at i == 257 with "no space left on device"
> (that's ENOSPC if I remember correctly). The "device" has still
> reams of space left:
>
> tomas@rasputin:~$ df -h
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> [...]
> /dev/loop0 238K 0 238K 0% /mnt
>
> So 256 must be a limit on number of entries on the top level dir of
> FATty file systems (or an implementation limit of Linux's version
> of that, but guess whom I trust more to bust that badly).
>
> Try this at home. Enjoy.
>
> -- t
From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is
correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the now several non-M$
versions of dos. I saw an announcement of yet another dos release just a
couple weeks back. I assume its getting better The limitations of dos3.2
drove me to find a better os, and os9 from microware, running on color
computers was it. Its still alive, but called Nitros9 now since we've
taken it apart, found several bugs and fixed them, and in the process
made it about 2x faster without touching the cpu clock. Basically it is
unix without the security overhead. But it does separate users, as it is
multi-user, and multi-tasking.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
Reply to: