| 1 |
On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote: |
| 2 |
>>> Is there a |
| 3 |
>>> filesystem that will make that unnecessary and exhibit better |
| 4 |
>>> reliability than NTFS? |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Yes, FAT. It works and works well. |
| 7 |
>> Or exFAT which is Microsoft's solution to the problem of very large |
| 8 |
>> files on FAT. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> FAT32 won't work for me since I need to use files larger than 4GB. I |
| 12 |
> know it's beta software but should exfat be more reliable than ntfs? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It doesn't do all the fancy journalling that ntfs does, so based solely |
| 15 |
on complexity, it ought to be more reliable. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
None of us have done real tests and mentioned it here, so we really |
| 18 |
don't know how it pans out in the real world. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Do a bunch of tests yourself and decide |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
>> Which NTFS system are you using? |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> ntfs kernel module? It's quite dodgy and unsafe with writes |
| 27 |
>> ntfs-ng on fuse? I find that one quite solid |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I'm using ntfs-ng as opposed to the kernel option(s). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I'm offering 10 to 1 odds that your problems came from a faulty USB |
| 33 |
stick, or maybe one that you yanked too soon |
Archives