On 12-Jul-2010, at 22:17, Michael_google gmail_Gersten wrote: > The third observation/question: One of those Fat32 partitions has > several sparse bundles, each of which is an Hfs+ image. One gets > copies of everything that happens on a Windows XP machine; one > provides a Time Machine backup for that. Neither of them will ever > mount cleanly without an fsck_hfs running. Neither of them every say > why fsck has to run -- nothing shows up in the log. Is this just a > consequence of the drive holding the sparsebundle having a damaged > index, or is this an indication that those also need to be wiped and > start fresh?
Is it possible that any files that are attempted to be written to the FAT32 are over 4GB? Because that 1) doesn't work and 2) sometimes fubars everything. Are you sure everything is sparse BUNDLES and no sparseimages? If they are in fact sparseimages maybe you are hitting a maximum file per directory limit? I forget what it is in FAT32, but I seem to recall it's well less than the 19,000 files that are in the bands/ folder of one of my sparsebundles. If not technically above a hard limit it is certainly above an effective use limit. Remember, the bundle is made up of 8MB files, all in one directory. This is NOT a good format for FAT32. a 200GB time machine sparsebundle will contain over 25,000 files in one folder. In general, OS X users should avoid FAT32 like the plague except for the very limited use of having a disk that needs to move between a PC and a Windows machine and will contain medium to large sized files in a coherent directory structure. In truth, you are better off buying another drive. I think newegg has Seagate 2TB drives on sale for around $110 right now. How much do you want to dink with this? -- THEY ARE LAUGHING AT ME, NOT WITH ME Bart chalkboard Ep. 7G12 _______________________________________________ MacOSX-talk mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
