Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

fat32 partition size question again.

Discussion in 'Tech Talk' started by lomfs24, Jan 20, 2005.

  1. lomfs24


    Apr 19, 2003
    OK, a while ago I asked about the size of partition you could have with FAT32. I have the whole drive partitioned as FAT32. It is one of three drives in this computer. 1) is Suse 9 Linux 2) Windows 3) 200GB storage. I formatted it in FAT32 so that both OS's could see it and use it. Now I am haveing a problem with putting large files on that drive. By large I mean 4 to 5 GB size. I get a invalid file handle error.

    Next I noticed that I have a FAT32 partion on my laptop for pretty much the same reason. However, when I try to put a large (4-5 GB) file it says there is not enough room, although there is 30 GB there.

    This brings up two questions.

    1) Does FAT32 have a file size limit? And...
    2) If I made those partitions NTFS would it make a difference if I wrote to them in linux since they are really just storage locations anyway?
  2. Writing to NTFS is still sort of beta/testing in Linux.That being said there has been a lot of progress in that area recently.I read it's working fairly well now with the latest aplications.I have never written to Windows from Linux.I do sometimes copy files from Windows to Linux.

  3. fastvfr

    fastvfr Ancient Tech

    Mar 28, 2001
    SW Oregon
    I'd format it 80GB FAT and 115GB NTFS, personally.

    Unless you have a TON of Linux files, that'll be plenty. I have 60GB of storage for mine, and even keep archived copies of all my / and /home directories there for safekeeping.
  4. David_G17

    David_G17 /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

    Oct 7, 2002
    i use linux to write to NTFS partitions all of the time. i've never had any problem with it.

    NTFS is much better at handling large file sizes than FAT32.

    from what i've read, it seems like anything bigger than 2 gigs isn't happy in FAT32.
  5. Tennessee Slim

    Tennessee Slim Señor Member CLM

    Apr 14, 2004
    Mucus City, USA
  6. lomfs24


    Apr 19, 2003
    Thanks everyone for all the replies.
    I should have gone into a little more detail. That may have helped with fastvfr's reply. My linux box is the part of that dual boot machine that is up most of the time. So I have this machine set up as a samba server and the 200GB drive shared... so that when I "back up" my movies, I put them in an ISO file and store them to this drive. So, while they are not specifically "Linux" files, it would be linux that would primarily be writing to that drive. Does that make sense?

    I think, since there is not a lot on that drive yet, I'll give it a try. I'll put a couple movies on it and if I lose them, oh well.