This makes exFAT the best choice for any portable drives that store large files and connects to different computers. It was slightly behind in the disk space analysis test, but not by much. It's pretty easy to determine which file system you should use for an external drive. Ask yourself two questions:. Unless you can answer "yes" to both questions, you should format the drive as exFAT.
Otherwise, go with FAT32 for compatibility purposes. Formatting erases everything on a disk, so it's a pain to change a drive's file system down the road. It's worth taking a moment to make sure you pick the right choice at the start. It's also possible to check the current file system of a drive if you're not sure. See our full guide to formatting USB drives on Windows for more help. For further reading, we've explained everything you need to know about formatting external drives on Mac.
In general, unless you have a specific compatibility reason, exFAT is the best choice since it's the most modern format with the fewest limitations. Reading from NTFS within other operating systems soon became possible, but reading is non-destructive, so if you mess up with the code, you still have the original file.
Not cool. It took longer, but eventually the Linux community felt comfortable enough with its NTFS write-code that it was added to the operating system kernel. Most vendors chose the former. Windows will keep stuff in memory including, presumably, file tables and if you've recently scanned the tree, subsequent accesses should be faster.
Tsaukpaetra said :. I'm not sure what would a benchmark show me. When the difference is x2 - x3, I can see it with my own eyes. ExFAT makes the opposite assumption. IIRC there's a setting that tells an NTFS volume it's a removable one so windows will stop writecaching the volume, but bugger if i can remember where that setting is After all, how often are you counting all the file on the disk? I've experienced problems under Windows with directories with a large number of entries.
That slowed down the file system to no end. Can't remember which fs, though. Do you perhaps have very large directories? Hanzo said :. Adynathos said :. The question is, is it?
And is there anything I can do about it? And why haven't the benchmarks online caught this? Eh, I'm going to say, "probably" and just be content that it even works cross platform. Now, if only we could test on the alter-OS you formatted the disk to be cross-compatible for Seems to be. From wikipedia :. This appears to be confirmed in other places :. That's talking about FAT rather than exFAT, but other documents lead me to believe the important parts aren't incorrect.
NTFS keeps all the directories inside the Master File Table, which it goes to some lengths to keep contiguous and optimally placed. I would not be at all surprised to learn that operations involving recursive directory tree walking run a lot faster on NTFS than on any variety of FAT.
Not to mention that last I knew, any non-MS implementation that supports writes either only supports ancient versions of NTFS, or are so buggy they're not useable. RaceProUK said :. Well then, it seems the situation has improved since I last looked. Are your drives different models? I believe that's related to the journal log, which is a very twitchy format that's not really touchable if you're not MS's own implementation.
If the log is empty i. Whether or not it is possible, it's a Bad Idea either way round. Dreikin said :. Anyway, I tried to restart yesterday, and the entire pc froze during the bios check. Only removing the new exfat hdd would make it boot again.
Nothing to do with exfat. Nevertheless, it throws the entire benchmark into doubt. Seems more likely to me that it relates to the fact that a hibernated snapshot of a running system is unlikely to have the filesystem in a clean state, as the hibernated image will almost certainly include cached filesystem structures relating to files that were open at the time hibernation was initiated.
It is best suited for Flash drives. NTFS supports file permissions, shadows copies for backup, provides encryption, disk quota limits, etc. It works fine with all versions of Windows. Mac, Linux, etc It works with all versions of Windows. Compatible with all versions of Windows You do not need a special configuration to use with Mac devices. It is read-only with Mac and some version of Linux. Maximum file size 4 GB and partition size 8 TB. It also does not have any particular file size or partition size limits.
Not have any specific file size or partition size limits.
0コメント