Re: Trying to partition a 400 GB drive in one FAT 32 partition....
- From: Roger <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:38:29 -0500
On 11 Jan 2006 01:21:41 -0800, "jcdill@xxxxxxxxx" <jcdill@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
As this is the first post in the thread and I don't know the title of
the original thread, please excuse me if I cover some things that have
already been covered.
>
>The problem is that when I finally DO migrate off of Windoze, I'll have
>to move all that data to a new disk format. I don't want to make that
>problem bigger than it has to be, I want to use a OS-agnostic disk file
>format for this new disk and then reformat the older drives as I move
>the data off of them, with improved sorting and cataloging of the data
>as I go. The end result will be tidier disks, all on one OS-agnostic
>format. Ultimately I'll mount the older disks on a server so that I
>can get to the older files over the net. But that doesn't work for the
>current files - it would take WAY too long to upload the files to a
>server (and retrieving them when I need to print) because I'm shooting
>many gigs a day when I'm shooting events.
Why not use NTFS? You can easily write to it with files that are
FAT-32. I transfer that way regularly and realize at events like road
races and the big fly-in at Oshkosh you may be looking at as much as
10 to 20 gigs.
<snip>
>> But the next step, which might make it portable, is to have the
>> RAID array work on a laptop running Linux, and use it as a
>> portable file server. Almost everything has Ethernet today, but
>> it might also be possible to use USB, wireless, and even serial
>> or parallel ports too, if needed.
>
>I don't need a RAID, and I don't want to lug around a RAID laptop (or
>pay for the expense of a RAID laptop) when all I need is a USB drive.
I often wonder why people keep thinking of RAIDS which are large,
bulky, and expensive and would not be at all handy in the field. OTOH
partitioning a drive for safety makes about as much sense.
>
>> Alternately another, smaller USB storage device, could be packed
>> around and data could then be moved between the RAID array on
>> the laptop and other machines by transferring it to the smaller
>> USB device. Somewhat less convenient than it could be, but it
>> still provides data integrity.
RAIDs only supply data integrity for hard drive failures and do
nothing for the usual reasons for corruption.
>
>I'm an event photographer. I take LOTS of photos (upwards of 10 gigs a
>day at some events). I create and upload small jpeg proofs to my
>gallery site. When orders come in I need quick access to the raw files
>so I can process the print image. Orders come in for several months
>after the event, so I need to have all the files from the past few
>months with me where ever I am (such as at another event), which means
>I need a large portable disk. Your suggestion is not just "somewhat"
>less convenient, it is very much less convenient and simply will not
>work for my situation.
>
><rant>
>
>Why is it so damn hard to get people to recognize that I've given my
>own requirements some serious thought and am asking for help with the
>solution that I'm fairly confident will meet my needs? Do I really
>need to write a novel about why my requirements ARE my requirements?
>Isn't it enough to just describe what I want?
>
></rant>
>
>I really do appreciate your suggestions, but I would just like help
>with solving my current problem - which is how to get a 400 GB drive
>formatted into ONE FAT32 partition, when the drive is mounted in a USB
I have to ask why you are sticking with FAT-32 when NTFS is more
robust and will happily handle 400 Gigs. I'm looking at two of them
right now. I picked up a pair of 400 Gig HDs, stuck them into USB-2
enclosures, let the computer find them, Formatted them using the XP
disk management tool and I now have two very handy drives with a total
of 800 Gig capacity.
>enclosure and all I have is a laptop running WinXP or which I can boot
>into Knoppix. So far I'm striking out. I'm unable to get Partition
If it's running XP why not just run XP?
Again, my apologies for not being able to find posts earlier than this
one.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>Magic to format the drive in one partition - the "wizzard" starts out
>with offering to make it all into one parition but then when it writes
>it to the pending tasks list it writes the partition size as 196,600.1
>MBs and it refuses to let me increase the partition size. I can't get
>Knoppix to see/mount the drive and I'm not really fluent in Linux - if
>there's a magic way to get Knoppix Linux to mount an unparitioned drive
>on a USB connection I haven't found it yet.
>
>jc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Trying to partition a 400 GB drive in one FAT 32 partition....
- From: jcdill@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Trying to partition a 400 GB drive in one FAT 32 partition....
- From: Paul Rubin
- Re: Trying to partition a 400 GB drive in one FAT 32 partition....
- References:
- And one file system to be read by them (OSs) all?
- From: jcdill@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: And one file system to be read by them (OSs) all?
- From: jcdill@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: And one file system to be read by them (OSs) all?
- From: Paul Allen
- Re: And one file system to be read by them (OSs) all?
- From: Floyd Davidson
- Trying to partition a 400 GB drive in one FAT 32 partition....
- From: jcdill@xxxxxxxxx
- And one file system to be read by them (OSs) all?
- Prev by Date: Nikon retires most of its film camera lineup
- Next by Date: Re: Nikon retires most of its film camera lineup
- Previous by thread: Re: Trying to partition a 400 GB drive in one FAT 32 partition....
- Next by thread: Re: Trying to partition a 400 GB drive in one FAT 32 partition....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
