| 1 |
On 01/09/2016 05:42, J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 2 |
> On August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM GMT+02:00, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>>> Is there a |
| 5 |
>>>>> filesystem that will make that unnecessary and exhibit better |
| 6 |
>>>>> reliability than NTFS? |
| 7 |
>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> Yes, FAT. It works and works well. |
| 9 |
>>>> Or exFAT which is Microsoft's solution to the problem of very large |
| 10 |
>>>> files on FAT. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> FAT32 won't work for me since I need to use files larger than 4GB. I |
| 14 |
>>> know it's beta software but should exfat be more reliable than ntfs? |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> It doesn't do all the fancy journalling that ntfs does, so based solely |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> on complexity, it ought to be more reliable. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> None of us have done real tests and mentioned it here, so we really |
| 21 |
>> don't know how it pans out in the real world. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Do a bunch of tests yourself and decide |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> When I was a student, one of my professors used FAT to explain how filesystems work. The reason for this is that the actual filesystem is quite simple to follow and fixing can actually be done by hand using a hex editor. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> This is no longer possible with other filesystems. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Then again, a lot of embedded devices (especially digital cameras) don't even get FAT correctly. Leading to broken images. |
| 30 |
> Those implementations are broken at the point where fragmentation would occur. |
| 31 |
> Solution: never delete pictures on the camera. Simply move them off and do it on a computer. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
>>>> Which NTFS system are you using? |
| 34 |
>>>> |
| 35 |
>>>> ntfs kernel module? It's quite dodgy and unsafe with writes |
| 36 |
>>>> ntfs-ng on fuse? I find that one quite solid |
| 37 |
>>> |
| 38 |
>>> |
| 39 |
>>> I'm using ntfs-ng as opposed to the kernel option(s). |
| 40 |
>> |
| 41 |
>> I'm offering 10 to 1 odds that your problems came from a faulty USB |
| 42 |
>> stick, or maybe one that you yanked too soon |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> I'm with Alan here. I have seen too many handout USB sticks from conferences that don't last. I only use them for: |
| 45 |
> Quickly moving a file from A to B. |
| 46 |
> Booting the latest sysresccd |
| 47 |
> Scanning a document |
| 48 |
> Printing a PDF |
| 49 |
> (For last 2, my printer has a USB slot) |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> Important files are stored on my NAS which is backed up regularly. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Indeed. The trouble with backups is that they are difficult to get |
| 54 |
right, time consuming, easy to ignore, and very very expensive (time and |
| 55 |
money wise) |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 60 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives