Here a nice article about this;
http://externaldisk.co.uk/article/2012/05/14/format-my-drive-for-mac-and-windows.html
The guy say that while exFAT is nice, it is slower and use more memory than FAT32.
The guy recommand to stick with fat32 but I really cannot. I got a lot of big ZIP and MOV files to backup that are bigger than 4gb.
Time capsule will not work with NTFS…
Maybe the best way for me would be to format the disk in 2 partitions, one 500gb for my current (windows) projects, then the rest in OS X Extended Journaled.
That way I can still use the disk on both system and use it for time capsule.
I presume windows will just ignore the Extended Journaled partition?
Thats exactly what I used to do and it worked fine, though after this Ill probably just stick with exfat, I was always under the impression it still had the 4 gig limit and just allowed for drives over 2 tb
I doubt the claims of noticeably inferior performance, but regardless, I can’t see why you shouldn’t do what you propose at least to have time capsule running.
You were already willing to format the Drive anyway, just do it and see if it works, and report back IMO.
so I pitched the exFAT article to the Ars editors and they are interested, so we should have something on the site in the couple months, since I want it to be a “month with exFAT” type article so any problems that could creep up would probably show up in that time.
lol… well, i too would be interested in the read. can you (when complete) make it sharable for us here?
I challenge you to get the word Fragapane into the article. Google tells me it means strawberry bread in latin if that helps.
Having had a look at that article, and other more reputable sources, I would ignore it wholesale.
He’s just spewing some common misconceptions and offering nothing to back them up.
exFAT is agreed upon to be safer, more efficient, and way faster in almost every case than FAT32, with the only exception of small volumes with many small equally sized files written sequentially, which is unlikely to interest you.
Space allocation and deletion (since exFAT offers a proper file map) in example is something retardedly faster, dozens to hundred times faster for the seek.
As it was born for flash drives and all it misses a lot of security features and the such (only has access control per file, no encryption etc.), but for an external device across platforms that’s fine. Also, it’s not like FAT32 has ANY of those anyway, it’s a very dated, very horrible file system that was well behind the curve only shortly after it was released, as most of DOS was anyway, which had the one and only redeeming quality at the times of being cheap.
I’ve just partionned the drive (1tb Exfat, 1tb Mac Journaled). It took 1sec. :curious:
Here another guy not too happy about Exfat;
(ex)FAT, like FAT is at the lowest level of reliability:
If anything goes wrong, you will get damaged files, directories
and may even lose files that were not involved in the operation.
To put it differently, FAT expects everything to work correctly,
but is very simple to implement.ext2/3/4 on the other hand are filesystems that expect things
to go wrong. In the Unix world, computers traditionally run
24/7 and the expected reason for a restart is an unexpected
power failure. Hence these filesystems have a high resilience
against things going wrong, with data-loss typically only
in files that were written at the moment of the power-failure
and no impact on other files. The downside is complex
implementation.That said, (ex)FAT is about the worst possible option for
a backup target device. Don’t use it. You are mixing two
functions here: Cross platform compatibility with Win und
OSX and backup-level reliability. That gives you a
“solution” that is not really suitable for either.
From here:
http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/reliable-exfat-fat64-t4033687.html
exFAT is not supposed to be secure and safe by nature, of course practically anything coming from the unix world will put it to shame, it’s a file format born to quickly deal with disposable data on external devices with loose mapping.
Saying FAT expects and keeps things safe though is extremely asinine. FAT, in its FAT32 incarnation, has been the laughing stock of file systems for the longest time.
exFAT single tabled (because doubly tabled is hardly supported) suffers the problems he described on USB sticks or memory cards because it’s very susceptible to power loss, in that case FAT is arguably more reliable. For a powered drive that’s not the case and the tabling and file mapping are superior.
The irony of it is that exFAT sort of fails at what it was intended for originally (removable media), but does extremely well at what they never thought it would have been used for (video drive and moving between mac and win).
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.