So, I'm trying to format my external HDD to FAt32 v.doesn'trecognizetheentiredrive

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by M.A. Malone Esq., May 4, 2008.

  1. M.A. Malone Esq.

    M.A. Malone Esq. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Messages:
    21,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    On your jock
    So, I'm formatting this drive for use with my PS3. The problem is it doesn't recognize the entire 750GB or so. When I view the drive in computer management, I can see that there is that amount of space, but when I format with either swissknife or fat32format, it only allocates 196GB. Why won't it recognize/format the rest of the drive to FAt32?

    Please help!:)
     
  2. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
  3. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know exactly what the size limit is on FAT32 partitions, but I'm pretty sure 750GB is over that limit.

    EDIT: As Jolly pointed out, increasing the cluster size may help. There's a limit on the total number of clusters a disk can have (based on which format you choose), so if you want to format a really big disk, you have to increase the cluster size. What I don't know is whether there's a size limit on the clusters too, and whether you can make them big enough to use all the space on that disk.
     
  4. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    You fail basic arithmatic, then. Especially considering that 750GB is only approx 9% of the theoretical limit for a fat32 volume.

    clusters can be up to 32KB which makes them PLENTY big enough.

    On a 750GB drive he will be fine using a 4KB cluster size to get maximum efficiency.
     
  5. M.A. Malone Esq.

    M.A. Malone Esq. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Messages:
    21,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    On your jock
    Thanks for the help guys. That seagate utility did the trick.

    One more question though. I didn't change the cluster size, AFAIK. Does this matter at all or is that fact that I have a 750GB drive proof positive that everything is in working order?
     
  6. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    the seagate tool picks the appropriate cluster size for you, based on the size of the partition. If you have an appropriately-sized partition, that means the clustersize is at least big enough.
     
  7. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've never successfully formatted a drive over 100GB in FAT32, using the Windows formatter anyway. That's what I based my response on.

    Isn't 4kB the "standard" cluster size? Why would he have needed a special formatting tool to do what Windows does by default? Now I'm curious.
     
  8. Mike99TA

    Mike99TA I don't have anything clever to put here right now

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,553
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Greenville, SC
    4kB is definitely the standard FAT32 cluster size. 16kB was the standard for original FAT.
     
  9. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    because microsoft has the limitation built into their format front-end. They do NOT want anyone using FAT32 for large drives -- they want people using NTFS.

    And I agree with them, under most circumstances. FAT32 lacks the good journaling support, as well as quotas, that I find so useful from NTFS. FAT32 also suffers quite badly for fragmentation on large volumes.

    However, there are situations where only FAT32 will get the job done -- such as drives that move between Linux or OS X installs -- since NTFS support under those operating systems is very buggy, slow, and writing can be dangerous. Also many embedded devices (such as a DVR) are only equipped to recognize FAT32 volumes.
     
  10. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see. I figured it was something like that. I have to say, I prefer NTFS myself too.

    You might be interested in a program called Ext2IFS. It's an installable file system that lets Windows read Ext2/Ext3 patitions. I used it on a dual-boot machine that I used to have, without any problems.
     

Share This Page