Re: VFAT Filesystem Unrecognized

Rob (
Mon, 30 Jun 1997 16:33:00 -0700 (PDT)

FAT32 and VFAT are not closely related.. look for FAT32 patches.. i don't
know where to find them, but i know for sure they exist.. i used them
before. :)


On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, B. James Phillippe wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, SethMeister G. wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> >
> > I have had this problem for a long time now, but I am just writing
> > about it now (because I am fed up with it :)) -- I have a vfat filesystem
> > that works just fine in windows 95, but does not want to work in linux.
> > The error I get is the syslog is:
> >
> > [MS-DOS FS Rel. 12,FAT 16,check=n,conv=b,uid=0,gid=0,umask=077]
> > [me=0xf8,cs=16,#f=2,fs=1,fl=168,ds=337,de=512,data=369,se=0,ts=717633,ls=512]
> > Transaction block size = 512
> > VFS: Can't find a valid MSDOS filesystem on dev 03:05.
> Is the VFAT partition a FAT32 partition? Windows fdisk will tell you
> that. I just ran into that problem yesterday. I needed to copy one
> Windows 95 computer to a new hard drive, and there is no way to do it
> under 95 so I stuck the drive in my Linux box, mounted it VFAT and made a
> tar of it. Then I tried mounting the replacement disk as VFAT but it
> wouldn't mount. I looked at the drive using Windows fdisk and saw that
> when I formatted it under Windows, it had formatted the drive using FAT32.
> I had to reformat it using a different Windows 95 (??) to get it to format
> the drive using FAT16. Then it mounted and I unpacked my tar. It worked
> perfectly as it should have using FAT16, but I never did get it mount when
> it was FAT32. I looked through the mount otions for FAT and saw the
> fat=12/16 option, but there was no fat=32 (I tried it anyway and it didn't
> work).
> Is there a reason that FAT32 doesn't work with the VFAT fstype, other than
> that support hasn't been added yet?
> thanks,
> -bp
> --
> B. James Phillippe Seattle Software Labs, Inc
> Network Administrator Phone: (206) 521-8346
> NIC Handle: BJP4 Fax: (206) 521-8340