Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft's exFAT Is Still Crap On Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Microsoft's exFAT Is Still Crap On Linux

    Phoronix: Microsoft's exFAT Is Still Crap On Linux

    If you were hoping to see support for Microsoft's exFAT file-system land in the Linux 3.3 kernel, guess again...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTAzOTE

  • #2
    Microsoft's exFAT Is Still Crap On Linux
    You probably meant: It's still crap.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm out of the loop I guess, but what actually uses exFAT? I have yet to run into a USB flash drive formatted with exFAT.

      So when would using exFAT over say ntfs or FAT32 be a good idea?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by cynyr View Post
        I'm out of the loop I guess, but what actually uses exFAT? I have yet to run into a USB flash drive formatted with exFAT.

        So when would using exFAT over say ntfs or FAT32 be a good idea?
        I think Sony wants to use exFAT for a new generation of 2TB memory cards. Those would be then for Windows and MAC only?

        Comment


        • #5
          FAT32 doesn't handle files larger than 4 GB and NTFS permissions on removable drives can become an issue. exFAT is for modern-day removable drives that don't need (and shouldn't have) permissions that can store 1080p movies which are larger than FAT32's maximum.

          Of course, UDF also fills these requirements, and is well-supported under all NT6-based operating systems. Formatting must be done from the Command Prompt, though. The Xbox 360 now supports UDF as well, so long as the storage device is MBR.
          Last edited by wswartzendruber; 01-08-2012, 02:55 PM. Reason: Grammar

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by cynyr View Post
            I'm out of the loop I guess, but what actually uses exFAT? I have yet to run into a USB flash drive formatted with exFAT.

            So when would using exFAT over say ntfs or FAT32 be a good idea?
            It's the specified file system for SDXC memory cards (SDHC successor).

            from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDXC#SDXC
            SDXC cards are to be pre-formatted with Microsoft's proprietary and patented exFAT file system, which the host device might not support. Since Microsoft does not publish the specifications of exFAT and its use requires a non-free license, many alternative or older operating systems do not support exFAT for technical or legal reasons. The use of exFAT on some SDXC cards may render SDXC unsuitable as a universal exchange medium, as an SDXC card that uses exFAT would not be usable in all host devices. Since the FAT32 file system supports volumes up to the SDXC's maximum theoretical capacity of 2 TB as well, a user could reformat an SDXC card to use FAT32 for greater portability between computers (see below), but consumer products such as digital cameras and camcorders do not normally provide the choice to format SDXC cards as FAT32 nor do they accept FAT32-reformatted SDXC cards.
            I wonder how they (the standard comity) thought it would be a beneficial to the consumer industry to introduce requirements on software that can't be implemented without a licence from someone into a memory card standard. It's not like they wouldn't know how much linux is used in the embedded consumer electronics space.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by cynyr View Post
              I'm out of the loop I guess, but what actually uses exFAT? I have yet to run into a USB flash drive formatted with exFAT.

              So when would using exFAT over say ntfs or FAT32 be a good idea?
              AFAIK it's the default filesystem for SDXC memory cards.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by cynyr View Post
                So when would using exFAT over say ntfs or FAT32 be a good idea?
                Never. To my knowledge, everything that supports exFAT also supports UDF. Just use that instead.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by phoronix View Post
                  Phoronix: Microsoft's exFAT Is Still Crap On Linux

                  If you were hoping to see support for Microsoft's exFAT file-system land in the Linux 3.3 kernel, guess again...

                  http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTAzOTE
                  You should benchmark ZFSOnLinux with ZRAID/ZRAID2 against mdadm-RAID5/LVM/Ext4, mdadm-RAID5/LVM/Tuxera-NTFS, mdadm-RAID6/LVM/Ext4 and mdadm-RAID6/LVM/Tuxera-NTFS. I suspect ZFS will outperform the others.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I would like to see better MTP support first before even worrying about exFat.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I just have to wonder if Micheal is retarded or simpy trying to create a negative image of Linux / Open Source, this 'article' is a goddamn joke. Claiming that Linux 'still doesn't have 'proper' extFAT support'. Proper? As in in-kernel support? He knows full and well that the reason Linux doesn't have in-kernel support for exFAT or NTFS is that they are patented proprietary Microsoft filesystems and that including them would open up a new possible attack vector for Microsoft (you know, that company which is running around threatening to sue Linux using companies over patents unless they pay up). And yet while fully knowing this he uses it to attack Linux.

                      Meanwhile, just like with NTFS, exFAT is fully supported on Linux through fuse which is a file-system implementation OUTSIDE of the kernel, where it belongs given it's patented and proprietary nature.

                      But that doesn't stop Micheal from going with the bullshit headline of 'Microsoft's exFAT still crap on Linux'.

                      I mean wtf? I used to say that if Phoronix actually got their game together and fixed their appallingly bad compiler benchmark suite then I would happily pay for a subscription, not anymore. I'll keep clicking the ads from time to time to make up for the bandwidth I use here but no way will I buy a subscription on a site which is consistently puring out pure bullshit intended to make Linux and open source in general look bad. I don't know what Micheal's endgame is but it sure as hell isn't the promotion of Linux.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I wonder where the article is that covers the craptacular UDF tools we have in UNIX land. Why do I need Windows Vista/7 or Mac OS X to burn an honest UDF CD/DVD/Blu-ray?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          UDF support in Unix is not bad generally. Solaris, FreeBSD, OS X all have good UDF support.

                          Linux UDF support is lacking a bit though, both on kernel (no write support for UDF 2.5+) and userspace (no fsck) side.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Actually, I have a binary called udffsck on my brand-new Gentoo install. Only problem is, it doesn't seem to do anything as far as accepting -h or --help.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
                              Actually, I have a binary called udffsck on my brand-new Gentoo install. Only problem is, it doesn't seem to do anything as far as accepting -h or --help.
                              Interesting, I'm guessing those are from sys-fs/udftools? http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-udf/ (#qfile udffsck)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X