Problems with MBR hard disk 5 TB

[jaclaz]

In theory the limit of a FAT 32 volume is given by the number of addressable clusters in the FAT table(s), notwithstanding the name, of the 32 bits of a FAT entry, only 28 can be used, which makes the limit at 2^28-1=268,435,455.

So:

4K clusters= 268,435,455*4,096=1,099,511,623,680

8K clusters= 268,435,455*8,192=2,199,023,247,360

16K clusters= 268,435,455*16,384=4,398,046,494,720

32K clusters= 268,435,455*32,768=8,796,092,989,440

BUT the sector count (in the BPB) is a 32 bit field, so the limit is the number of sectors 2^32-1=4,294,967,295

512 bytes sectors=4,294,967,295*512=2,199,023,255,040

4096 bytes sectors=4,294,967,295*4096=17,592,186,040,320

(which are the same limits of the MBR style of partitioning).

In practice, each and every OS (and also each and every MS or third party tool) may  support only volumes up to much smaller sizes.

Creation of a FAT32 is (in Windows) artificially limited to 32 GB by the good MS guys, and there are reasons for that, but even if they were a bit too "cautious" (probably actually attempting to "push" for NTFS adoption) the cluster sizes adopted for the various ranges make sense[1], so the 32 KB cluster size for volumes over 32 GB in size should be respected.

Making volumes/partitions larger than 32GB (manually or using third party tools) is possible, but it may well (as you just found out) lead to issue with this (or that) OS or tool.

At the time Dencorso reported testing FAT32 partitions on different operating systems successfully, but he put his limit to around 232 GB:

https://msfn.org/board/topic/118623-clone-easily-windows-98-and-xp-in-the-same-computer/?do=findComment&comment=866879

so, roughly 8 times the MS limit (using 32 KB clusters), in order to limit the number of clusters to 6-8 millions, he also reports how the Windows ME (which came out around the same time as Windows 2000) has a limit in CHKDISK around 27 million clusters.

Your volumes, being bigger and using (too) small sized clusters have 3 or 4 times that amount of clusters, I am not surprised that Windows 2000 has issues with them, maybe not at the same 27 million, but low enough to cause the issues, and there could be other issues related to cluster size for boot volumes or some other implementation limit.

The 760 GB volume has around 99 millions clusters (8192 bytes each).

The 1208 GB volume has around 79 millions clusters (16384 bytes each).

The 1208 GB volume that you tried to make with 8192 bytes clusters would have around 148 millions clusters, as well I wouldn't at all be surprised if in XP there is a (possibly higher than in 2K) limit to the number of clusters and/or some other limitations.

Besides these (evident) issues, there may be other ones, that could happen only when using this (or that) MS or third party tool.

You should try using the (recommended for volumes larger than 32 GB) 32 kB clusters, if there is some limit in number of clusters, by lowering it you may be able to have your (very large) volumes working fully.

jaclaz

 

 

[1] basically the larger the cluster size, the smaller the FAT is, thus the faster it is to parse it to access files. while - if you have many small files - a large cluster size implies having more space wasted on disk (which is not a real problem anymore)

 

 

[Cixert]

More or less a loss of 2 GiB is observed when passing from cluster 8 KiB to cluster 16 KiB, in this partition that has mixed size content. Keep in mind that when restoring an image the new partition is defragmented.
By the way, that I have analyzed the same units with the Windows hard driver defragment and it informs that there are more files and folders than Windows XP indicated above.

Both reports of both partitions match the quantity = 271,606 files in 29,557 folders

According to the confession of the ex-engineer Microsoft, David Plummer, the limit of 32 GiB format on FAT32 was "because I say it" without any technical reason
https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/04/windows_format_fat32/

I have been remembering the limits that I had checked in 2016 for Fat32. Finally I have remembered that the old partition of 760 GiB I put a cluster size of 8 KiB "because I say it" , although MiniTool Partiion Wizard did not allow me to format a Fat32 partition of this size with this cluster size, so I format this with Fat32 Format (guiformat.exe) that is not limited in any way.
The result has been that during these 7 years I have not had any problem with this unit that I have used daily. I have tried enough special tools and I have not had problems (I think I have tried almost all those that exist), also on several occasions I have used chkdsk and check of Windows 2000/XP units have been executed tens of times when starting the system by bad session closures or light cuts.
I have not used Windows 9.x or MS-DOS tools. Although I have tried, the MS-DOS system does not recognize such large units.
The only problem I had now, when in tried the backup with a 16 KiB cluster size in the new unit, when the old unit should have already had the size of cluster 16 KiB.

I have performed some tests with the maximum values that allow MiniTool Partition Wizard 10.3 and all have been satisfactory. So in the absence of an official documentation that indicates otherwise I will use the maximum values indicated by MiniTool.
Pointing out that on the Internet there are information that says that a cluster size greater than 32 KiB is not compatible with Windows 95 or previous. And that other information say that the maximum number of files per folder in Fat32 is 65534 files.
I think I remember that I had a problem in the past for this reason.

FAT32 PARTITION LIMITS (format with MiniTool Partition Wizard)
Cluster     4 KiB =   0.29 TiB /     300.99 GiB /     308213.76 MiB
Cluster     8 KiB =   0.58 TiB /     600.99 GiB /     615413.76 MiB
Cluster   16 KiB =   1.17 TiB /   1203.99 GiB /   1232885.76 MiB
Cluster   32 KiB =   2.35 TiB /   2407.99 GiB /   2465781.76 MiB
Cluster   64 KiB =   4.70 TiB /   4815.99 GiB /   4931573.76 MiB
Cluster 128 KiB =   9.40 TiB /   9631.99 GiB /   9863157.76 MiB
Cluster 256 KiB = 18.81 TiB / 19263.99 GiB / 19726325.76 MiB

*Just I exceeds only 3.4 GiB the limit for cluster 16 KiB and problems arose.
*Values from 64 kib are not given by MiniTool, these have been calculated by the previous amounts and I have not verified their correct operation.
*You have to take into account the limits punctured by @jaclaz for the maximum partition size of 16 TiB with sectors of 4096 bytes and 2 TiB for 512 bytes sectors.
(real calculation 15,9999999962747097015380859375 TiB & 1,9999999995343387126922607421875 TiB)

Now I only have to know why in the new computers that I am using with large external USB hard drives, Windows XP does not perform the disc verification when starting the system.

Edited August 4, 2023 by Cixert

[jaclaz]

The amount of files in a directory is limited (and this is actually the "only" reason why it is possible to install Vista on FAT32 but not Windows 7, unless the contents of some of the WinSxS sub-directories is reduced), JFYI:

http://reboot.pro/index.php?showtopic=19643&p=182961

the limit is not "fixed" as it depends on the length of filename.

So in theory you have 65,536 (2^16) or 65,535 (2^16-1) entries available, but each file (unless it is a "kosher" 8.3 name) will take at least 2 of them, that makes in practice the number be below 32,768, with (nowadays common) stupidly long file names it is not so rare that you have (as in the \winSxs\Manifests example above) a limit around 7,000 files.

Personally I wouldn't use a cluster size bigger than 32 kb (but then I wouldn't also use such large volumes in FAT32).

jaclaz

 

[Cixert]

The tests that I have pointed out on the maximum sizes FAT32 cluster have been performed with empty partitions in Windows XP. I am afraid that there is some other limit in the number of files by partition. I do not know if it is related to the size of the cluster. I suppose it is unreasonable to think that problems may be related to a alignment of disk in the first partition greater than sector 63, especially because I have the problems in the second partition.

I comment that because again I have formatted the 1208 GiB partition with a 16 KiB cluster size. And that is, when I have proven that there are no problems with this cluster size if there aren't files. That is, when the partition is empty, without files, Windows 2000 when performing the boot hasn't encountered problems and has started perfectly.

Again I have formatted the partition with cluster 32 KiB and I am right now filling the partition with files. I will report if there are problems.

I use Fat32 because the rest of the file systems do not like me. With NTFS I had problems with several Seagate 40 Gb hard drives. These contained Windows XP in the years 2001-2002-2003. NTFS overwrites the file system in the same physical area of the hard drive and this caused hard drives to fail in less than a year several times. With Fat32 a hard drive has never spoiled to me. Besides, I am afraid that someone encrypts my files with NTFS, so I consider better FAT32, I don't care that someone remotely see my hard drive, but I do care that someone encrypts it.

I am studying the possibility of using exFAT but I read many negative things related to the file system overload. That is to say, the same problem commented with NTFS would occur but more increased. I am reading on the Internet that exFAT uses a 128 KiB cluster size by default, because if it uses smaller collapse the file system inputs, thus spoiling the SD cards of mobile phones.

These are the sizes of cluster exFAT with which Minitool Partition Wizard allows formatting.

exFAT PARTITION LIMITS (format with MiniTool Partition Wizard)
Cluster     4 KiB =   1.00 TiB / 1025.00 GiB / 1049610.24 MiB
Cluster     8 KiB =   2.00 TiB / 2049.00 GiB / 2098176.00 MiB
Cluster   16 KiB =   4.00 TiB / 4097.00 GiB / 4195328.00 MiB
Cluster   32 KiB =   8.00 TiB
Cluster   64 KiB = 16.00 TiB
Cluster 128 KiB = 32.00 TiB
Cluster 256 KiB = 64.00 TiB
...and so on to cluster 32768 KiB (32 MiB) = 8192 TiB

Comparing both tables, if this is possible, I will try to use FAT32 until reaching partitions of 4.7 TiB

What format do large databases use and with what criteria divide hard drives?

Edited August 4, 2023 by Cixert

[jaclaz]

Well, Seagate hard drives 40-120 Gb of those years (some 20 years ago) were not exactly the most reliable anyway.

It is not like NTFS writes in a same place whilst FAT32 writes in a different one, there is a setting in NTFS to NOT update last accessed data/time that eases the writing on the hard disk, but apart from that it is not like there is that much excess writes in normal operation between NTFS and FAT32, NTFS is surely more hard disk intensive, but all the world has used and is using it in the last 25 years or so and the sky hasn't fallen on our head (yet).

exFAT is (IMHO) not a particularly "good" filesystem, but for storage/backup it is just fine, and it is "lighter" on disk than NTFS (in the normal version, AFAICR there is a "transactional" version used on some devices that may be disk intensive).

I cannot really see a difference between (should you be the target of an attack) someone encrypting your filesystem (using NTFS/EFS) and just encrypting your files (like most ransomware do) or plainly deleting/overwriting them, as a matter of fact, though it is not given that you can decrypt EFS, at least with it you have some chances, whilst with a "random" ransomware encryption it is much more probable that the decryption is impossible or, if luck is on your side and a method of decryption is found, it takes usually months or years to be available.

Stretching the size of FAT32 volumes the way you are doing it is risky because it is largely unexplored territory, and there is always the possibility of an implementation bug that unexpectedly destroys the data.

The issue, as often happens, is with your need (or desire) to have these gargantuan[1] volumes and keep compatibility with 2K and/or XP, otherwise you could make more (smaller, please read as "of reasonable size") FAT32 volumes, the chain of logical volumes inside Extended partition has a few limitations/us more prone to possible corruption (though normally a broken chain can be easily repaired), if you could migrate to GPT you would have 128 primary partitions available.

jaclaz

[1] You know, I've always liked that word "gargantuan", I so rarely have the opportunity to use it in a sentence.

 

[Cixert]

On 8/4/2023 at 10:46 AM, jaclaz said:

exFAT is (IMHO) not a particularly "good" filesystem, but for storage/backup it is just fine, and it is "lighter" on disk than NTFS (in the normal version, AFAICR there is a "transactional" version used on some devices that may be disk intensive).

The issue, as often happens, is with your need (or desire) to have these gargantuan[1] volumes and keep compatibility with 2K and/or XP, otherwise you could make more (smaller, please read as "of reasonable size") FAT32 volumes, the chain of logical volumes inside Extended partition has a few limitations/us more prone to possible corruption (though normally a broken chain can be easily repaired), if you could migrate to GPT you would have 128 primary partitions available.

 

I have been working for a few days with this primary partition of 1.17 TiB in FAT32 with cluster 32 KiB without problems. It is a partition in which I copy and paste many files. Here I have saved programs of different sizes. And easily I use ZIP compression and decompression with many files.
I would like to try exFAT but I read bad criticisms of a FAT32 fan, who also does not want NTFS. He says that suddenly in exFAT strange things happen with files that disappear and that he then prefers NTFS to store +4GiB files.
The only problem I see in continuing to use FAT32 is that the size of Cluster is not appropriate for the files that I have. In NTFS I could use an 8 KiB cluster. My question is if exFAT works well with cluster 8 KiB or necessarily requires cluster 128 KiB.
So there is lower exFAT file system overload? I ask why I read otherwise.
In FAT32 with a 32 KiB cluster I am losing 6 GiB for 1 TiB.
With an 8 KiB cluster I would lose less than 1 GiB.

I have another primary partition, this yes in NTFS, I keep operating systems and backups of these. It is a partition in which I do not move as many files as I can do in the partition in which I have programs and so far I have not had problems although it has many more files.
In other partitions that I have music and videos with a 32 KiB cluster I lose less than 1 GiB per 1 TiB.

In the NTFS partition I also lose 4 GIB per 1 TiB due to the NTFS file system with $MFT type files, etc.

At the moment I have no problems with extended partitions.
The problem of using more partitions to divide the data is that the English alphabet has 26 letters.
So, how in GPT can I have more than 26 accessible partitions from My PC?
2 data discs with 5 partitions = 10 letters
1 system disc with 4 partitions = 4 letters
2 DVD units = 2 letters
4 units pendrive = 4 letters
1 disquette = 1 letter
Total = 21 letters I already have busy.

I will also review that the restoration of 1,17 TiB USB 2.0 FAT32 backup image made with R-Drive Image took 2 days with Windows 2000 and more than 4 days with Windows XP.
(It is a problem already known, although we do not know the cause)

Edited August 18, 2023 by Cixert

[jaclaz]

8 hours ago, Cixert said:

The problem of using more partitions to divide the data is that the English alphabet has 26 letters.
So, how in GPT can I have more than 26 accessible partitions from My PC?

You will need to start adopting mount points, they are possible since Win2k version of NTFS came out:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-2000-server/cc938934(v=technet.10)

.https://www.itprotoday.com/windows-78/magic-mount-points

My personal advice is to have on each physical disk a (can be very small) NTFS volume with the mount points of other volumes on the same disk, though mount points can of course be made cross-disk it is easier if they are self-contained.

jaclaz

 

[Cixert]

On 8/18/2023 at 11:10 AM, jaclaz said:

You will need to start adopting mount points, they are possible since Win2k version of NTFS came out:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-2000-server/cc938934(v=technet.10)

.https://www.itprotoday.com/windows-78/magic-mount-points

My personal advice is to have on each physical disk a (can be very small) NTFS volume with the mount points of other volumes on the same disk, though mount points can of course be made cross-disk it is easier if they are self-contained.

jaclaz

 

Thank you, it is very valuable information for me, I will experiment with it.

At the moment what I have done is to convert the partition FAT32 with cluster 32 KiB to NTFS partition and then I have changed the cluster to 8 KiB.
Unfortunately it has not been a good idea.
Just 24 hours working with the NTFS partition and a subfolder with 554 subfolders and 3113 files has suddenly disappeared.
It is the folder in which I keep my Internet browsers collection.
Directory:
Program / Web / Browsers with 554 subfolders and 3113 files.

It happens that in this partition I have files of multiple sizes. I have downloaded websites, stored without compressing that I gradually compress in Zip. When I have compressed a downloaded website then I have erased the files and the USB hard drive has suddenly disconnected from Windows XP.
It is something that has already happened to me previously in FAT32, when I handle multiple small files suddenly the USB 2.0 unit loses the connection with Windows XP disappearing the partitions of My PC, a few seconds later Windows XP re-loads the partitions.
However, when this unknown error happens in FAT32 I have not problem, but in NTFS this great folder has disappeared.

I have tried to recover it without success with:
R-Tools R-Studio
Wise Data Recovery
Easeus Data Recovery
Eassos Recovery
Amazing Dr. Recovery

Then I have made a chkdsk /f /r and then yes, chkdsk has found huerphan files and folders that have recovered perfectly.

I have been lucky, but I might not have realized this disappearance and have overwhelmed the folder. I am sure that I don't want NTFS.
But I will try to discover the cause of the problem.
Why is USB unit suddenly disconnected in certain situations?
I don't know, but it's something that happens in all computers and hard drives.

Examining the album with Eassos DiskGenius (menu Tools + Check Partition Menu Table Error) this tells me the following errors in the new hard drive copy, these are not in the old hard drive copy.
"Warn: The Number of Sectors in DBR Less Than Current Value"

This same error appears in the other NTFS partition with cluster 8 KiB on the new hard drive.

I don't know if this seems that it has happened after changing the cluster size 4 KiB to 8 KiB,
I do not know if it is a critical error that can be related to the disappearance of the folder.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Cixert

[jaclaz]

No idea about what the warning you have relates to.

Nor any idea about what DBR refers to.

It could be something connected with the "conversion" from FAT32 you made or - more likely - from the 4KB to 8 KB[1] conversion[2].

You seem like using each and every (formatting/converting/partitioning) third party tool available assuming that all of them work properly (hint: very often they don't work as they should in a number of cases).

As you have seen with your bunch of recovery tools (some of which written by the same people that wrote the partitioning tools) they often completely fail at something that a "normal" CHKDISK solves, so I wouldn't be so sure that they created "perfect" partitoning/formattinh/converting tools at the same time they wrote good-for-nothing recovery tools.

The issue you had with USB "random" disconnection has no reason to be related to the filesystem used, but AFAIK it is not something that should happen, there could be *something*  wrong in your XP install, in the USB drivers or even in your hardware, a rather common issue can be not enough USB power.

jaclaz

[1] as always, just my personal opinion on the matter, but I see no reason to have 8 KB clusters on a NTFS volume, the whole idea being that 4K clusters are good up to 16 TB and unless you are going to exceed that size, there is no advantage in a larger cluster size.

[2] once re-said that I have no idea about what the error you got actually means, it is possible that converting to a larger cluster size a "twilight zone" is created at the end of the volume, and that this triggers that warning (essentially a mismatch on size in the BPB when compared to the volume extents as seen by windows  and/or to the partition size) :

http://reboot.pro/index.php?showtopic=18034&p=166592

 

[Cixert]

On 8/22/2023 at 3:40 PM, jaclaz said:

No idea about what the warning you have relates to.

Nor any idea about what DBR refers to.

It could be something connected with the "conversion" from FAT32 you made or - more likely - from the 4KB to 8 KB[1] conversion[2].

You seem like using each and every (formatting/converting/partitioning) third party tool available assuming that all of them work properly (hint: very often they don't work as they should in a number of cases).

As you have seen with your bunch of recovery tools (some of which written by the same people that wrote the partitioning tools) they often completely fail at something that a "normal" CHKDISK solves, so I wouldn't be so sure that they created "perfect" partitoning/formattinh/converting tools at the same time they wrote good-for-nothing recovery tools.

The issue you had with USB "random" disconnection has no reason to be related to the filesystem used, but AFAIK it is not something that should happen, there could be *something*  wrong in your XP install, in the USB drivers or even in your hardware, a rather common issue can be not enough USB power.

jaclaz

[1] as always, just my personal opinion on the matter, but I see no reason to have 8 KB clusters on a NTFS volume, the whole idea being that 4K clusters are good up to 16 TB and unless you are going to exceed that size, there is no advantage in a larger cluster size.

[2] once re-said that I have no idea about what the error you got actually means, it is possible that converting to a larger cluster size a "twilight zone" is created at the end of the volume, and that this triggers that warning (essentially a mismatch on size in the BPB when compared to the volume extents as seen by windows  and/or to the partition size) :

http://reboot.pro/index.php?showtopic=18034&p=166592

 

In MBR I have not any problem with these programs working with drives larger than 2 TiB
-Windows Disk Manager
(although it possibly leaves the partitions misaligned)
-Acronis Disk Director
(although it possibly leaves the partitions misaligned)
-EaseUS Partition Master.
-Eassos DiskGenius
-Macrorit Disk Partition Expert
-MiniTool Partition Wizard up to 10.3

 

I suppose that DBR refers to Disk Boot Record, I have not found technical information about it, it could be synonymous with MBR.
The problem partition has fixed the errors after defrag or after CHKDSK (I'm not sure).
In another partition that shows the same error it was not corrected with the above methods so I have corrected this automatically with Eassos Disk Genius.

Then I have formatted the NTFS partition with exFAT, restored my files and started working.
In less than 48 hours the same data loss error as in NTFS has occurred 2 times.
When I am deleting an empty subfolder and the USB partitions are randomly unmounted from Windows (now I have tried Seven, before in XP), possibly due to a power failure, so when the partitions are remounted I see that all the main folder contents is gone, all files and all subfolders.
The content is quickly recovered with the Windows tool "check for errors on this drive and fix it automatically".

I gave this exFAT partition a cluster size of 8 KiB.

I have also formatted another partition to exFAT with 1.4 TiB and set it to a 4 KiB cluster size. After filling it with data CHKDSK says no problems found.
The size occupied by the partition has been reduced by 1-4 GiB using exFAT as opposed to using NTFS.
exFAT seems to work faster than NTFS.
The problem has been that again I have an accidental data loss in a few hours due to the USB port sudden disconnection.
I have USB drive caching disabled.

[jaclaz]

These data losses may well be connected to Issues with the power draw from the USB connector.

Those are USB 3.0, right?

The limit should be 900 mA (@5V).

If I were you I would try with a Y USB cable and see if the behaviour remains the same.

jaclaz

[Cixert]

5 hours ago, jaclaz said:

These data losses may well be connected to Issues with the power draw from the USB connector.

Those are USB 3.0, right?

The limit should be 900 mA (@5V).

If I were you I would try with a Y USB cable and see if the behaviour remains the same.

jaclaz

It is USB 3 and it is connected in USB 2 with external power supply.
The problem usually happens when I delete a lot of small files.
With medium sizes I have not seen a problem.
It is as if this did not have time to write in the FAT or the MFT.
I don't quite understand the Y cable.
which Y wire?
so that?

Thanks.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Cixert

[jaclaz]

The common "Y" USB cable has two male USB connectors (one data+power, one power only) and a single female one, the idea is to draw power from two USB ports on the computer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-cable#USB

but if you have an external power adapter (provided it works correctly[1]) then that is not the issue.

You said you have USB drive cache disabled, have you tried deleting these small files with it enabled?

It should be not *needed* on modern disks that have plenty of internal cache, but you never know, it could also be *something else* at the USB or Mass Storage driver level, but if it happened to you on two different OSes (Xp and 7) it is not probable.

jaclaz

[1] I have seen power adapters that behaved just fine but that in case of peaks of draw dropped voltage, so a test with another adapter is anyway a good idea

 

[Dixel]

I once had a problem with a bad USB3.0 cable, it was wobbly and very thin (WD Elementals 8TB plastic box), I replaced it, and all works fine since. The error was similar, Windows told me: small files couldn't be deleted (protected).

[Cixert]

I will tell you a little about the experience that I have had in recent months with this MBR data disk connected by USB.

The partitions on the 5TB hard drive have remained unchanged:
1- Primary NTFS --> 1.31 TiB --> Cluster 8 KiB
2- Primary exFAT ---> 1.17 TiB ---> Cluster 8 KiB
3- Primary FAT32 --> 91.2 GiB ---> Cluster 8 KiB
4- Extended FAT32 ---> 683 GiB ---> Cluster 16 KiB
5- Extended FAT32 ---> 289 GiB ---> Cluster 32 KiB
6- Extended FAT32 ---> 937 GiB ---> Cluster 32 KiB

I have worked with 4 operating systems, Windows 2000-XP-Seven-10

For the first month I was continually copying and pasting files into the exFAT partition and unzipping and compressing ZIP files. I mainly used Windows XP and Windows Seven, but more Windows Seven.

The problems in this exFAT partition were continuous, the errors that I had read in an article that criticized this file system were reproduced.
Suddenly files and folders were missing for no reason, changing the exFAT partition to read-only mode and I had to recover the files with CHKDSK.
On more than one occasion, Windows Seven and 10's CHKDSK were unable to repair the file system, issuing an error that said something like "unable to repair."
Surprisingly, the solution was to use Windows XP's CHKDSK, then everything worked again.
Without being so serious, file system errors also frequently happened to me on the NTFS partition.
 
Furthermore, the exFAT partition suddenly disappeared several times, and the only method to recover it, without a copy of the partition table, was the DiskGenius program.

Undoubtedly at that moment I was thinking about converting the exFAT partition to FAT32 and saving myself from problems. I also doubted whether it had been a good idea to format the NTFS partition with an 8 KiB cluster, since I could not find an explanation for the errors.
Subsequently, I spent a couple of months experimenting with all the disk defragmentation programs, testing all the partitions with them. The file disappearance errors continued when copying and pasting files, but not in the defragmentation process.

I left the defragmenters theme and started working on other themes.
Weeks and months passed and then I realized that I have not problems again, neither with the NTFS partition nor with the exFAT partition, I continue copying and pasting files, but not in such quantity as at the beginning.

I did not have any problems with FAT32 partitions, of course. I have read a solution to have these files larger than 4 GiB.
I don't know if I'll dare to try it. I see that there are more systems than I thought, FAT32+, FAT32x...

Edited April 16 by Cixert