LIMA S.A. wrote:
>
> If your drive is moderately fragmented, lets supose you have to read the
> file in two diferent parts of the drive in FAT-16 but in FAT-32 it can
> be 4 or more parts of the drive. The time it takes the head to move over
> the drive makes a lot of difference.
Hi Alejandro;
That is very correct. But the problem is due to cluster size directly and
only indirectly to FAT32 (because it allows smaller clusters).
With small clusters, large files load slowly ONLY if they are fragmented.
With large clusters, small files ACCESS slowly whether the disk is
fragmented or not.
File fragmention is less, on average, with large clusters because only
large files can become fragmented, but you pay for it in wasted space and
delayed access for the average file. (Fat 16, BIG disk)
I'm not advocating FAT32 here, because anyone but a Windows user can easily
go to FAT20 and still be compatible with FAT16 and everyone else.
FAT20 ? That's FAT16 with 16 partitions. <G>
2Gb drive with 2k clusters, 32Gb drive with 32kclusters.
As Richard says, (translated) FAT system sucks.
Before going to FAT32, _I_ would go to Linux.
- Clarence Verge
--
- Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
--
