TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#10,734
#10,734
Mick said:
Go ahead then tell me.
Click to expand...

First off go back and see where I added a link that compares FAT32 to NTFS for all the details.

The 32 in FAT32 refers to the maximum file size allowed and is approximately 4GB (2^32 is 4,xxx,xxx,xxx in value). The limit for NTFS is 16TB I believe.

Nobody and I mean nobody is going to run FAT32 on a server. If the image is in FAT32 that’s criminal. And I don’t know how they could even do that without making a lot of work for themselves.
 
Last edited:
#10,736
#10,736
NorthDallas40 said:
First off go back and see where I added a link that compares FAT32 to NTFS for all the details.

The 32 in FAT32 refers to the maximum file size allowed and is approximately 4GB (2^32 is 4,xxx,xxx in value). The limit for NTFS is 16TB I believe.

Nobody and I mean nobody is going to run FAT32 on a server. If the image is in FAT32 that’s criminal. And I don’t know how they could even do that without making a lot of work for themselves.
Click to expand...

32 stands for number of bits in the file name. Just so you know.
 
#10,737
#10,737
Mick said:
32 stands for number of bits in the file name. Just so you know.
Click to expand...

Ummmm... so you’re claiming that a file in FAT32 is allowed to have a name containing an ASCII field of 4Gb in size?

No.

Edit: and I told you I knew what you thought it meant!! Most people confuse that number with file name length. No it relates to maximum partition size. Original DOS was FAT16. I believe it was Win 3.0 that got us FAT32. Win NT got us NTFS or that’s the first place I remember seeing it.
 
Last edited:
#10,738
#10,738
NorthDallas40 said:
Ummmm... so you’re claiming that a file in FAT32 is allowed to contain an ASCII field of 4Gb in size?

No.
Click to expand...

The file name is allotted 32 bits. File Allocation Table is what FAT means. No you cannot have a file name of 4GB.
Well, as some of you will know, FAT/FAT32 can actually handle up to 16TB hard drives and up to 2TB are supported in most operating systems. Microsoft has set a 32GB partition size limit for the FAT/FAT32 file system to promote NTFS, which is generally more efficient when working with large partitions.
 
#10,739
#10,739
NorthDallas40 said:
Ummmm... so you’re claiming that a file in FAT32 is allowed to have a name containing an ASCII field of 4Gb in size?

No.

Edit: and I told you I knew what you thought it meant!! Most people confuse that number with file name length. No it relates to maximum partition size. Original DOS was FAT16. I believe it was Win 3.0 that got us FAT32. Win NT got us NTFS or that’s the first place I remember seeing it.
Click to expand...

:popcorn:
 
#10,740
#10,740
Mick said:
The file name is allotted 32 bits. File Allocation Table is what FAT means. No you cannot have a file name of 4GB.
Well, as some of you will know, FAT/FAT32 can actually handle up to 16TB hard drives and up to 2TB are supported in most operating systems. Microsoft has set a 32GB partition size limit for the FAT/FAT32 file system to promote NTFS, which is generally more efficient when working with large partitions.
Click to expand...

:popcorn:
 
#10,742
#10,742
Mick said:
The file name is allotted 32 bits. File Allocation Table is what FAT means. No you cannot have a file name of 4GB.
Well, as some of you will know, FAT/FAT32 can actually handle up to 16TB hard drives and up to 2TB are supported in most operating systems. Microsoft has set a 32GB partition size limit for the FAT/FAT32 file system to promote NTFS, which is generally more efficient when working with large partitions.
Click to expand...

No. Go read the link I posted earlier Mick.

You cannot put a single logical partition on a 16TB drive with FAT32 and utilize the whole space. You would have to break the 16TB physical drive up into four 4TB logical drives ( C:, D:, E:, etc...). In addition to partition size NTFS provides superior data protection and integrity checks.

Stop while you are waaaaaaaaaay behind Mick.

http://techcosupport.com/press/maximum-size-of-a-fat-32-partition/

You cannot decrease the cluster size on a FAT32 volume so that the size of the FAT is larger than 16 megabytes (MB) minus 64 KB. You cannot format a volume larger than 32 gigabytes (GB) in size using the FAT32 file system during the Windows XP installation process.
Click to expand...

Edit: one correction. Maximum partition size is about 8TB not 4TB so you would need to break up the 16 TB physical drive into two logical 8TB partitions.

Final Edit: it’s been a long time since I even thought about FAT32 but I don’t think it will create a 4TB partition. And at this point I don’t care since I’m running NTFS on everything but a really old laptop.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#10,745
#10,745
NorthDallas40 said:
No. Go read the link I posted earlier Mick.

You cannot put a single logical partition on a 16TB drive with FAT32 and utilize the whole space. You would have to break the 16TB physical drive up into four 4TB logical drives ( C:, D:, E:, etc...). In addition to partition size NTFS provides superior data protection and integrity checks.

Stop while you are waaaaaaaaaay behind Mick.
Click to expand...

Best practice is to use NTFS now days. The reason is that the larger disk space needs(for performance) a dynamic file system to quickly identify the first cluster in the file and each pointer in the chain until EOF. If using Fat 32, creating logical drives helps do what NTFS does by design.

FAT32 can actually handle up to 16TB hard drives

Windows XP! Cool. one day you might have a better source.
 
Last edited:
#10,746
#10,746
Mick said:
Best practice is to use NTFS now days. The reason is that the larger disk space needs(for performance) a dynamic file system to quickly identify the first cluster in the file and each pointer in the chain until EOF. If using Fat 32, creating logical drives helps do what NTFS does by design.

FAT32 can actually handle up to 16TB hard drives
Click to expand...

The strength of NTFS vs FAT32 especially in server applications comes from the native data protection, integrity, and access controls that just automatically happen. That is why if Crowdstrike really did image a NTFS server into a FAT32 copy they deliberately destroyed a good deal of the native forensic information. That is what the tweet is referring to.

I really believe the physical limit on partition size for FAT32 is 8TB. The cluster and sector math is broken down in the link I put above. But not going to argue on it anymore.

Windows XP! Cool. one day you might have a better source.
Click to expand...

Lol. The most popular Microsoft OS to date when it was released that proliferated all aspects of Home and business and Microsoft literally had to tear it out of people’s hands. I have a very old laptop that still runs it. Lol quit while you’re behind. Way behind. 😂😂
 
Last edited:
#10,750
#10,750
NorthDallas40 said:
The strength of NTFS vs FAT32 especially in server applications comes from the native data protection, integrity, and access controls that just automatically happen. That is why if Crowdstrike really did image a NTFS server into a FAT32 copy they deliberately destroyed a good deal of the native forensic information. That is what the tweet is referring to.

I really believe the physical limit on partition size for FAT32 is 8TB. The cluster and sector math is broken down in the link I put above. But not going to argue on it anymore.



Lol. The most popular Microsoft OS to date when it was released that proliferated all aspects of Home and business and Microsoft literally had to tear it out of people’s hands. I have a very old laptop that still runs it. Lol quit while you’re behind. Way behind. 😂😂
Click to expand...

I loved XP. What "forensic"data was destroyed? Access logs intact, Data intact, so what is this "native forensic information" you think was destroyed?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top