> 2TiB is only the limit if you stick to 512 byte blocks, the filesystem supports up to 4096 byte blocks giving 16TiB.
Aye, I'm aware, but a 16TiB FAT32 file system in that configuration is only usable on Linux, at which point... why? Use exFAT in that range!
Windows NT 5.x's storage drivers don't support hard disks larger than 2TiB, and there's nothing to do about that. It puts the upper limit of FAT32 on those systems at 2TiB.
IIRC FAT32 supported larger sectors in part for future proofing. It was made because of storage length limits on its predecessor so it makes sense that the devs were very conscious of the need.
Also some storage systems are more efficient speed-wise with larger sectors (though if that was a concern for you, you probably weren't using FAT<anything>). It also made switching between 16 & 32 in-place easier, though I can think of a reason off the top of my head why you would want/need to, and none of the standard tooling could do that.
Aye, I'm aware, but a 16TiB FAT32 file system in that configuration is only usable on Linux, at which point... why? Use exFAT in that range!
Windows NT 5.x's storage drivers don't support hard disks larger than 2TiB, and there's nothing to do about that. It puts the upper limit of FAT32 on those systems at 2TiB.