#75324 - kojicolnair - Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:28 am
I have GBAMP with a 1GB CF and i'm just wondering if fat or FAT32 would be better
#75327 - Dwedit - Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:59 am
Either will do. FAT has a larger cluster size, but FAT32 wastes more space up front in exchange for a smaller cluster size.
_________________
"We are merely sprites that dance at the beck and call of our button pressing overlord."
#75334 - mntorankusu - Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:30 am
| Dwedit wrote: |
| Either will do. FAT has a larger cluster size, but FAT32 wastes more space up front in exchange for a smaller cluster size. |
This would mean that if the card is filled with few very large files, FAT is better, and if it's filled with many very small files, FAT32 is better. Correct?
But I wouldn't think it makes a big difference either way.
#75339 - chishm - Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:44 am
Also, FAT32 can support an unlimited (except by disk size) number of files in the root directory, while FAT12/16 (normally) only supports a maximum of 512 entries. Keep in mind that a long file name consumes multiple entries, so realistically, you are looking at about 100 files and/or directories.
However, the larger cluster size of FAT12/16 offers speed gains when writing or reading large files.
_________________
http://chishm.drunkencoders.com
http://dldi.drunkencoders.com
#84040 - Canadaka - Sat May 20, 2006 7:30 am
hmm interesting, so with this in mind, how does this play into the M3 vs Supercard debates?
Because the Supercard only does fat right? and M3 can do fat32
So if I had a 2GB SD card, I really couldn't fil it up with tons of roms or mp3's, because the fat would limit that.
But if I had an M3, i could put as many files on the SD card and they would read faster?
#84048 - JaJa - Sat May 20, 2006 9:50 am
Of course, you could use FOLDERS *gasp*.
_________________
LAWL HOOGE
My Blog
#84053 - Canadaka - Sat May 20, 2006 10:22 am
so the fat file restriction is per folder not per drive then?
#84107 - derula - Sat May 20, 2006 4:14 pm
| Canadaka wrote: |
| so the fat file restriction is per folder not per drive then? |
Yes.
_________________
visit my blog. please.
#84173 - Canadaka - Sat May 20, 2006 9:49 pm
ok so really thats a non issue.
But what is an issue is the speed difference. Is there much of a noticable speed increase in fat32?
#84221 - chishm - Sun May 21, 2006 10:40 am
| Canadaka wrote: |
| so the fat file restriction is per folder not per drive then? |
It actually only applies to the root folder. All subfolders (subdirectories) have no practical limit.
_________________
http://chishm.drunkencoders.com
http://dldi.drunkencoders.com
#84226 - Canadaka - Sun May 21, 2006 11:36 am
| chishm wrote: |
| Canadaka wrote: | | so the fat file restriction is per folder not per drive then? |
It actually only applies to the root folder. All subfolders (subdirectories) have no practical limit. |
thanks for the clarification. And the M3 and Supercard have no problems navigating sub folders?
#84239 - tepples - Sun May 21, 2006 2:24 pm
The data structures of FAT are optimized for memory efficiency, not time efficiency. Big subdirectories will slow down browsing and file opening, as subdirectories in FAT are stored in a linked list of clusters (and thus searched linearly), with the files in no particular order.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.