Anyone hear about the exFAT file system, the successor to FAT32?

Rod Speed · Sep 4, 2009

(e-mail address removed) wrote

That is not a theoretical problem,

Corse its a theoretical problem when some configs have
plenty of cpu power and so wont see that particular problem.

it is just that handling more than 32GB gets clumsy and NTFS is better.

Its more complicated than that when the amount of cpu power available varys considerably.

By putting the 32GB limit on formatting just helps save
some people from complaining about performance.

And is a theoretical problem when they have plenty of cpu power.

Looking at exFAT very briefly, I'm not sure it actually much better.

No one ever said it was.

The example (250GB disk) I am looking appears to have
clusters of 128K, unless there is something I haven't seen
yet, it will not be very effecient at storing short files.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Arno · Sep 4, 2009

Yousuf Khan said:
And what's that theoretical problem?
Yousuf Khan

I doubt it exists. And even if it does, what do we care about
a _theoretical_ problem?

Arno

YKhan · Sep 4, 2009

Yousuf Khan wrote

MS claims its because many tasks on a very large FAT32 file system becomeslow and inefficient.http://technet.microsoft.com/en-au/magazine/2006.07.windowsconfidenti...

I don't think we needed a theory to figure that one out. :-)

Yousuf Khan

YKhan · Sep 4, 2009

I doubt it exists. And even if it does, what do we care about
a _theoretical_ problem?

Regardless, flash disks aren't really all that performance critical as
components. Seeing as FAT32 is obviously capable of being extended out
to greater than 32GB as long as you use a non-Microsoft formatter
util, I'm sure most mfgs will avoid paying the Microsoft tax and just
continue to use FAT32. Those applications which require file sizes
greater than 4GB, such as PVR's will most likely be using more
advanced file systems anyways like NTFS, or one of the *Nix file
systems.

Yousuf Khan

Arno · Sep 4, 2009

Regardless, flash disks aren't really all that performance critical as
components. Seeing as FAT32 is obviously capable of being extended out
to greater than 32GB as long as you use a non-Microsoft formatter
util, I'm sure most mfgs will avoid paying the Microsoft tax and just
continue to use FAT32. Those applications which require file sizes
greater than 4GB, such as PVR's will most likely be using more
advanced file systems anyways like NTFS, or one of the *Nix file
systems.

Or alternatively us a tivial split scheme, for example as DVDs do.

Incidentially, quite a few NAS boxes and I suspect at least
part of the PVRs alreasy run Linux and use for example
ext2 or ext3. Windows is not only more expensive, it requires
more expensive hardware for the same performance and is
a lot less stable and more difficult to program, not to
mention less secure. And it does not really run well on
MIPS. (AFAIK you have to revert to the brain-damaged CE
version.)

Arno

Mike Ruskai · Sep 4, 2009

Regardless, flash disks aren't really all that performance critical as
components. Seeing as FAT32 is obviously capable of being extended out
to greater than 32GB as long as you use a non-Microsoft formatter
util, I'm sure most mfgs will avoid paying the Microsoft tax and just
continue to use FAT32. Those applications which require file sizes
greater than 4GB, such as PVR's will most likely be using more
advanced file systems anyways like NTFS, or one of the *Nix file
systems.

DVR's don't use normal file systems. All of them fragment way too much for
video recording purposes. TiVo units, for example, use a proprietary file
system called MFS (Media File System).

Rod Speed · Sep 4, 2009

YKhan wrote

I don't think we needed a theory to figure that one out.

Its a real problem with large FAT32 partitions and low
horsepower system with calculating the free space alone.

Obviously not bad enough to make it unusuable, but thats a different matter entirely.

All MS is saying is that NTFS works a lot better in those partitions bigger than 32GB and they are right.

Rod Speed · Sep 4, 2009

DVR's don't use normal file systems.

Quite a few of them do.

All of them fragment way too much for video recording purposes.

Fragmentation is irrelevant with DVRs, because the speed
of access to the file is entirely determined by the play
speed of the media, so extra seeks arent even noticeable.

TiVo units, for example, use a proprietary file system called MFS (Media File System).

And hordes of other DVRs dont, particularly those that use USB connected media.

YKhan · Sep 4, 2009

DVR's don't use normal file systems. All of them fragment way too muchfor
video recording purposes. TiVo units, for example, use a proprietary file
system called MFS (Media File System).

That would make some sense, especially since you need to be able to
read from the file while it may still be being recorded.

Yousuf Khan

YKhan · Sep 4, 2009

And hordes of other DVRs dont, particularly those that use USB connected media.

Which DVR's use flash disks to store video? They may use it to copy
stuff already recorded off of them, but do any of them really use the
flash disks for direct recording?

Yousuf Khan

Rod Speed · Sep 4, 2009

YKhan wrote

Which DVR's use flash disks to store video?

All the ones that dont have an internal hard drive.

They may use it to copy stuff already recorded off of them, but
do any of them really use the flash disks for direct recording?

Yep, one of mine does. No internal hard drive, size of a cigarett packet, its
a set top box as well, and records to flash ram sticks and SD cards too.
Completely standard FAT format sticks, it just breaks the file into 4GB segments.

Its happy to write to any USB device and uses a standard format on that.

My cellphone uses flash disks to store video too.

Rod Speed · Sep 4, 2009

YKhan wrote

That would make some sense,

Fraid not. Fragmentation doesnt matter a damn with media
files because the speed of access is entirely determined by
the media speed so a few extra seeks dont matter a damn.

especially since you need to be able to read
from the file while it may still be being recorded.

Perfectly possible to do that with completely standard file systems.

My PVR which has a number of capture cards does
that fine with either FAT32 or NTFS formatted drives.

And you're mangling the file format with the file system in that case anyway.

Rod Speed · Nov 21, 2009

Capella said:
guys, stop criticizing exfat.

Take your orders and shove them where the sun dont shine.

It is not such a bad file system especially if you have windows 7.

The most obvious problem with it is that **** all supports it.

The advantages of exfat is mainly to serve as an alternative to ntfs.
Exfat is also used to eliminate fragmentation on drives

It doesnt eliminate fragmentation, and there is no point in eliminating fragmentation anyway.

and for use in drives with low space

Where it clearly doesnt eliminate fragmentation.

(surprised?)

Microsoft claimed that exfat does not fragment a volume
until that volume only has 15 percent free space. I have
tested that on my own system. 0 percent framentation.

Thats the implementation, not the file system.

In addition, exfat requires little space for the actual formating.

Who cares with modern TB hard drives ?

I heard that ntfs takes like 40 mb just for the file system.
However, exfat takes much less than that.

Who cares with modern TB hard drives ?

Consider an external hard drive. Usually, if you buy say for example
a 1tb external hdd, you would have it formated in fat 32 which most
people would change immediately to ntfs (why would you get so
much space and NOT have files greater than 4 gigs?) However,
Ntfs becomes inefficient and slow over time

Like hell it does.

ESPECIALLY as the drive fills up.

Wrong, as always.

exFat is Microsoft's solution to the problem.

Pity that **** all supports it.

Please respect the existence of exFAt, and don't randomly criticize it.

Take your orders and shove them where the sun dont shine.

The criticism aint random.

It is already being used in limited areas of the industry
as the default format for flash drives and external hdd.

By **** all.

Without exfat, you are forced to use ntfs,

No you arent.

which is slow and inefficient.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Microsoft created this for a purpose

Yeah, to gouge license fees.

and lets respect that.

Take your orders and shove them where the sun dont shine.

Ed Light · Nov 21, 2009

Where do you get exFAT?

Is it as damage-resistant as NTFS?

On my flash drives, for large numbers of small files NTFS is much faster
than FAT.
--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.

Ed Light · Nov 21, 2009

Ed said:
Where do you get exFAT?

Is it as damage-resistant as NTFS?

On my flash drives, for large numbers of small files NTFS is much faster
than FAT.

I guess it is just for Windows Embedded CD? Maybe needs an exFAT aware OS.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.

David Brown · Nov 23, 2009

Rod said:
Take your orders and shove them where the sun dont shine.

The most obvious problem with it is that **** all supports it.

It doesnt eliminate fragmentation, and there is no point in eliminating fragmentation anyway.

Where it clearly doesnt eliminate fragmentation.

Thats the implementation, not the file system.

Who cares with modern TB hard drives ?

Who cares with modern TB hard drives ?

Like hell it does.

Wrong, as always.

Pity that **** all supports it.

Take your orders and shove them where the sun dont shine.

The criticism aint random.

By **** all.

No you arent.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Yeah, to gouge license fees.

Take your orders and shove them where the sun dont shine.

I might not have used the same language myself, but I agree with /all/
your points here, Rod.

Capella must be an astroturfer quoting some MS press release.

Rod Speed · Nov 23, 2009

David Brown wrote

Rod Speed wrote

I might not have used the same language myself, but I agree with /all/ your points here, Rod.

Bugger, now I will have to reverse myself. Have you no sense of common decency and decorum at all ?

Capella must be an astroturfer quoting some MS press release.

Just a silly little pig ignorant wanker.

mscotgrove · Nov 23, 2009

David Brown wrote

Bugger, now I will have to reverse myself. Have you no sense of common decency and decorum at all ?

Just a silly little pig ignorant wanker.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just to upset everyone I would like to say that exFAT is not a bad
file system. For many files it does not use the FAT and so is much
faster. It seems to encourage writing in long sequences rather than
filling each hole in the FAT.

It is part of Vista and Windows 7

However, FAT32 survives because it is compatible with many systems,
from cameras, to Macs, to Linux. exFAT will never replace it in those
areas and I do not expect to see it being used anywhere, except by
mistake by Windows 7 users formating and external drive.

Michael

Rod Speed · Nov 23, 2009

(e-mail address removed) wrote

Just to upset everyone

You didnt upset me.

I would like to say that exFAT is not a bad file system.

Sure, its certainly got some useful improvements, particular support for files
bigger than 4G but the massive problem with it is that **** all supports it.

For many files it does not use the FAT and so is much faster.
It seems to encourage writing in long sequences rather than
filling each hole in the FAT.

Sure, but thats not necessarily any big deal with modern 1TB drives and flash drives.

It is part of Vista and Windows 7

Vista SP1 and Win 7

However, FAT32 survives because it is compatible
with many systems, from cameras, to Macs, to Linux.

And requires no license fee to Microsoft.

exFAT will never replace it in those areas and I do not expect to see it being used
anywhere, except by mistake by Windows 7 users formating and external drive.

I expect it will eventually do better than just that last.

Ed Light · Nov 23, 2009

Just to upset everyone I would like to say that exFAT is not a bad
file system. For many files it does not use the FAT and so is much
faster. It seems to encourage writing in long sequences rather than
filling each hole in the FAT.

It is part of Vista and Windows 7
Michael

Michael,

I missed part of this thread.

Just one question: Is exFAT as crash damage resistant as ntfs?
--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.

Anyone hear about the exFAT file system, the successor to FAT32?

Rod Speed

Arno

YKhan

YKhan

Arno

Mike Ruskai

Rod Speed

Rod Speed

YKhan

YKhan

Rod Speed

Rod Speed

Rod Speed

Ed Light

Ed Light

David Brown

Rod Speed

mscotgrove

Rod Speed

Ed Light