From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 03:06:52 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED48516A403 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:06:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@dfwlp.com) Received: from zeus.dfwlp.com (zeus.dfwlp.com [208.11.134.127]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822F343D46 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:06:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd@dfwlp.com) Received: from athena.dfwlp.com (athena.dfwlp.com [192.168.125.83]) (authenticated bits=0) by zeus.dfwlp.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9A36oR7043903 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:06:50 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from freebsd@dfwlp.com) From: Jonathan Horne To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:06:49 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <20060925220057.hqu0378bjk04gccg@webmail.cs.vt.edu> <375baf50610091643n4a283023i6457bb1bcfdf8926@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <375baf50610091643n4a283023i6457bb1bcfdf8926@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610092206.49993.freebsd@dfwlp.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=ham version=3.1.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.5 (2006-08-29) on zeus.dfwlp.com Subject: Re: mount_msdosfs 240G X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:06:53 -0000 On Monday 09 October 2006 18:43, Kevin Sanders wrote: > On 9/26/06, Alistair Sutton wrote: > > On 26/09/06, sanya wrote: > > > Hello > > > > > > I have a problem with mounting big fat32 partition. > > > > I had a similar problem when trying to mount a 180G USB drive. > > > > Recompiling my kernel with the MSDOSFS_LARGE option allowed me to > > mount the drive. > > I wonder why this isn't the default? because support for this is not deemed stable in environments that have X number of files in the file system, where X is "a number i cannot remember right now, but its a lot more than i have or ever will have". hundreds of thousands or more. cheers, jonathan