Sam Leon wrote:
Mark Allums wrote:
Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 08:23:43PM +0100, Jochen Schulz wrote:
Masatran / Deepak, R.:
Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32
partition, and
one Ext3 partition.
Is ext3 on a flash medium really a good idea? At least cheap flash
drives probably don't have smart wear levelling.
And FAT32 is better?
Let's us all start a movement, an exFat on Linux movement. exFat is
a relatively new FS that is designed specifically for removable
drives. It is superficially an "extended FAT", while the underlying
bits are new. MS has added it to Vista with SP1, and to XP with a
hotfix.
Everyone should hope someone competent takes the time to port it to
Linux, with full write capability. It is exactly what OP needs.
In the meantime, for removable drives 32G and under, one should
probably stick to FAT32/vfat.
Mark Allums
I disagree. Linux already has jffs2 for embedded flash applications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFFS2
However flash drives have their own controller:
Removable flash memory cards and USB flash drives have built-in
controllers to perform wear-levelling and error correction so use of a
specific flash file system does not add any benefit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_flash#Flash_file_systems
Sam
I think you have missed my point. exFat has advantages that have
nothing to do with wear-leveling, etc. exFat is not a flash file
system, is is a file system, period. It addresses some of the problems
and limitation of FAT, and doesn't suffer as badly when removed without
unmounting. It is intended for *removable* storage, not necessarily flash.
MArk Allums
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
