FAT16 vs. FAT32

[106112909]

Guys

I'd like to know your views on whether to use FAT16 or FAT32 on a 2GB SD card.

I understand that there will be more wastage when using FAT16 because each file will take a whole number of 32K clusters. The FAT itself will be smaller (64K x 2 bytes for each cluster number = 128k).

With FAT32, the size of the FAT increases as you reduce the cluster size but the smaller the cluster size, the smaller the wastage. Using FAT32 (4 bytes per FAT entry) and a cluster size of 512 bytes (the minimum) yields a FAT size of 4096K x 4 = 16M.

I also immagine that the bigger the FAT, the slower the card becomes.

Anybody want to come-in on that?

Patrick

[AnswerDude]

From Anton Tomov the author of Pocket Mechanic ;

To summarize: FAT16 + larger cluster size = better performance (use if you will store a few large files on the volume to avoid large "slack"). FAT16 should also be used if the card will be used in a digital camera. Most digital cameras only support FAT16. FAT32 + smaller cluster size = better space allocation (less "slack") - use for cards larger than 64-128MB and when storing a lot of small files.