search for: secperclus

...code is ran against the same disk and same parameters as we've been using for our example, and with some debugging of the variables enabled, you'll see the following output: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DskSize = 195369519, ReservedSecCnt = 32, SecPerClus = 64, NumFATs=2, BytesPerSect = 512 Numerator = 4 * (195369519 - 32) = 781477948 Denominator = (64 * 512) + (4 * 2) = 32776 FatSz = (781477948 / 32776) + 1 = 23843 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, the algorithm mentions that this computation is based o...

...same > disk and same parameters as we've been using for our example, and with > some debugging of the variables enabled, you'll see the following output: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > DskSize = 195369519, ReservedSecCnt = 32, SecPerClus = 64, NumFATs=2, > BytesPerSect = 512 > > Numerator = 4 * (195369519 - 32) = 781477948 > Denominator = (64 * 512) + (4 * 2) = 32776 > FatSz = (781477948 / 32776) + 1 = 23843 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Now, the algorithm m...

Hi Ady, On 2016.02.25 02:08, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > There is an "extra" sector, in comparison to... what exactly? Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think I implied that the Large FAT32 fat size had an extra sector compared to minfatsize, when of course I meant the opposite (the Large FAT32 has one less sector than the minfatsize computed by the unpatched code, hence the check