Thx
In the comment I've found this
>Allocation unit sizing to set when using the fat32 formatting tool. The recommended cluster size to set for a 16GB FAT32 partition is 4KB, the recommended cluster size for a 64GB FAT32 partition is 16KB, the recommended cluster size for a 128GB FAT32 partition is 32KB and the recommended cluster size for a 256GB partition is 64KB. Furthermore, you cannot increase the cluster size beyond 64KB because this would cause certain programs to calculate disk space incorrectly. Note that some versions of Windows prior to Windows XP, including the old Windows 95 and Windows 98, don't support cluster sizes above 32KB
So it means that it's not possible to properly go beyond 256gb with fat32 without getting "sloppy", because of max cluster size
But technically it seems possible though
What's the problem of going for let's say a 512gb disk, with 64kb cluster size? I mean the real problem, like one that breaks the card or make read/write errors happen. Does it just lower data transfer rate or is there more or something else to ponder when going that way?
>I mean the real problem, like one that breaks the card or make read/write errors happen. Does it just lower data transfer rate or is there more or something else to ponder when going that way?
I was thinking it may have to do with the reader module and voltage/current or something like that. However, the Wikipedia article on the format doesn't seem to indicate anything that raises a red flag on voltage/current draw with higher card capacity. The actual card storage size and storage size calculations imposed by the format also seem firmly established (from like, back in 2006), so that doesn't seem to be it either. I'm tapped out, so it's probably as is saying that it's only related to manufacturer testing and what they can guarantee from that info.
(post is archived)