Re: [OT] Re: bug? VFAT copy problem

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

DervishD <lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>  * Sergio Monteiro Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> dixit:
>> On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 15:53 +0100, DervishD wrote:
>> >  * Sergio Monteiro Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> dixit:
>> > > Have vfat a limit of a file size when copy ? 
>> > 
>> >     2GB, if I recall correctly. FAT32 itself has a limit of 4GB-1 for
>> > file size, but Linux restricts it even more (don't ask me why).
>> 
>> May I say that FAT32 have a bigger limit (at least on last Windows).
>
>     I really don't know, but from microsoft technical information
> (the first or second hit when googling for "FAT32 size limit"), the
> limit they specify in FAT32 is 2^32-1.
>
>     I may be wrong, but with 32 bits you cannot address more than
> 2^32 bytes, I don't know how can you create a bigger-than-4Gb file in
> a FAT32 filesystem without resorting to tricks like this:
>
>     forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-20689.html
>
>     Looks like FAT-32 (don't ask me how because I don't know the
> internals) can store a file bigger than 4GB, but you cannot *save*
> it. So you won't be able to put the file you have back to any FAT32
> filesystem, I'm afraid.

Right. FAT's size field is 32bit, so *file* of FAT has limit of 4GB-1.
(Since directory doesn't have size, in theoretically it can exceed 4GB-1)

Hm.. Maybe MS added a new hack to FAT..?
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/