on average, you waste half a cluster per file. the larger the files, the smaller the percentage.
Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 3:55 PM Subject: Re: FAT > Yeah, I knew that FAT16 wasted more space than FAT32 for lots of small > files, and of course it had a much smaller limitation on max file/volume > size. I thought that it also wasted space basically proportional to the > size of the file, i.e. small files on the average wasted space that was > proportionally small, but had a big impact when you had lots of them. > So don't bigger (Mb) files waste on the average the same space as a > percentage? I.e. if you allocate a file that *just* gets into the next > sized cluster, isn't a large part wasted?
