On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 01:38:57PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 12:02:37PM -0400, Haines Brown wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 12:11:46AM +0200, Harald Arnesen via Dng wrote: > > > Haines Brown [07.08.2020 18:19]: > > > > > > > Yes, for sure. If you are right about the speed difference between > > > > NTFS and ext4, then is there another FS that can be accessed by a > > > > Windows machine that is not much slower than ext4? > > > > > > fat32. Or if you run a recent kernel on your Linux machine (Devuan 5.4 > > > is ok), then exfat. > > > -- > > > Hilsen Harald > > > > Hilsen, going to fat32 might be my bset bet if its speed is more like > > ext4 than ntfs. Is it the consensus that this is the case? > > Isn't there a limit on the number of data blocks you can have > on a FAT volume? > Meaning that for large volumes you end up with absurdly large blocks. > And because you can't pack multiple files into a data block, this limits > the number of files you can have.
With a sector of 512 bytes, it fat32 is apparently limit to 2 Tb. I'm unclear whether a limit on the number of files becomes a problem. Vfat might be analternative. > > -- hendrik > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng -- Haines Brown _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
