Actually, FAT32's maximum file size is 4-GB; FAT16's is 2-GB. Please refer
to this URL for more information:

	http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm


Ernie L. Bérriz
 Mesa, Arizona
  Fax:  509.752.6776
   Ernie_Berriz@qwest.net


| -----Original Message-----
| From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
| [mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of Eric
| Lee Green
| Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 8:43 AM
| To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
| Subject: Re: Max Allowable Filesize
|
|
| On Thursday 04 September 2003 10:07, Kyle Faber wrote:
| > On Thursday 04 September 2003 9:54 am, C Graham wrote:
| > > I have an older version of Red Hat (6.?).  Trying to use
| samba to backup
| > > work related folders on Windows NT.  The sum of all files is
| in access of
| > > 2 GB.
| >
| > It is a windows file system limitation under NT.  Your file
| size is limited
| > to 2GB.
|
| Since when? As far as I know, NTFS has been able to handle large
| files for,
| like, forever. Now, FAT32 is, of course, limited to 2GB... SMB
| may also be
| limited to 2GB, I'd need to go check Microsoft's KnowledgeBase to
| tell you
| for sure, but I suspect there's a newer version that allows bigger files
| (much like NFS V2 vs. NFS V4, or Linux 2.2 vs. Linux 2.4). I do know that
| either Samba or the 'smbfs' in the Linux kernel limits you to 2GB
| filesize, I
| ran into that at a previous job. But NT and NTFS have no problems
| with big
| files (other than the typical problems that come from running Microsoft
| software, such as high cost, incompatibility with open solutions,
| etc. etc.).
|
| --
| Eric Lee Green              eric@badtux.org
| Linux/Unix/Storage Engineer Seeks Job -
|   see http://badtux.org for resume
|
| ---------------------------------------------------
| PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
| To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
| http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
|