Article View: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Article #6346Re: Number of subdirectories limited ?
From: Joi L. Ellis
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:44
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:44
62 lines
2912 bytes
2912 bytes
jav2d@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Jason Adams Vanvalkenburgh) writes: >ernst@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de writes: >> Hi, >> >> I know there is a limitation on the number of subdirectories in the >> root directory, but is there any limitation in directories other >> than "\" ? >> No, there is NOT. >> Thanks for any info, Ernst. >> -- >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Ernst Kloecker phone: ++49-30-6181635 e-mail: ernst@cs.tu-berlin.de >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >The FAT system only allows a maximum number of file entries. I'm not In the ROOT of the volume. You can have a huge number of files in subdirectories off the root. >have any more than 112 file entries. Therefore 112 0-byte files would >actually fill up the disk, because the FAT tables were full. Larger FAT tables are used to track clusters of data allocated on the volume. They don't have anything to do with directory capacity other than that directories are themselves files which occupy clusters tracked in the FAT. Zero length files take up no disk space, only a 32-byte (or whatever) slot in the directory "file." Many, many empty files will take up many many 32-byte slots and cause the directory "file" to grow. Directory entrys are not tracked individually in the FAT unless the file has space allocated. The directory "file" itself will occupy disk space and be tracked in the FAT. It would be theoretically possible to fill a disk with empty files, but it would be due to the directory containing the filesnames growing to fill the disk, not the number of entries themselves. Paper scritching tells me you could get 360K * (1024/32) = 23,040 zero length files on a floppy before the directory "file" filled the space available. (Note that Novell Netware DOES have such a limitation in 2.x versions, because the volume structure is radically different than DOS.) >capacity disks have proportionally more space allocated for the FAT >tables, etc. I had never heard of limitations for the root directory, >though. >Hope this answers your question. >-- > Jason A. vanValkenburgh > University of Virginia '95 > jav2d@virginia.edu -- Joi Ellis msjle@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu Student Residential Programs Western Illinois University
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<Bxvr1J.LJ7@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!garrot.DMI.USherb.CA!uxa.ecn.bgu.edu!msjleReferences:
<1992Nov17.111130.17833@cs.tu-berlin.de> <1992Nov17.195401.772@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,alt.msdos.programmer Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!garrot.DMI.USherb.CA!uxa.ecn.bgu.edu!msjle From: msjle@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Joi L. Ellis) Subject: Re: Number of subdirectories limited ? Message-ID: <Bxvr1J.LJ7@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Organization: Educational Computing Network References: <1992Nov17.111130.17833@cs.tu-berlin.de> <1992Nov17.195401.772@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:44:06 GMT Lines: 63