this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
1191 points (98.5% liked)
Memes
45549 readers
1930 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I was thinking about this recently, so it is a bug, not a feature
If it has been a bug for 20+ years, we can safely say it's a feature for backwards compatibility.
I mean, it was intentional in a way, so the definition of bug is hazy, but the functioning version would be the ExFAT format.
But the problem isn't in Fat32 itself, as you can format larger disks in that format just fine
Yes, the final line of my comment explains that, it's just that the cluster size in Fat32 has a lower bound so if you have files smaller than the cluster then they take a whole cluster, and that can lead to cluster slack that is vast majority wasted space.