Earlier quoted context omitted.
who/what reads that file?
tar
That stretches the definition of "a single file" when it is basically a filesystem itself.
The thinking behind the 32GB Windows Format limit on FAT32
21–30 of 75 posts
Re: The thinking behind the 32GB Windows Format limit on FAT32
#22If my memory serves well, when 40+ GB HDDs started being common, you were either using Windows 2000 and NTFS already, or it was probably a good practice to have several partitions, given the overall unreliability of Windows 9x and the not so infrequent clean reinstallations. And then came Windows XP and the issue was moot. It's a bit of a shame Microsoft didn't push and open up exFAT earlier and allowed FAT32 to beco…
The problem with removable drives is that no one came up with a better filesystem than FAT32 that could be implemented easily by everyone. All the *NIX filesystems embedded permissions that were useless on non-POSIX systems and caused issues on POSIX ones when you actually moved a drive from one computer to another. So MS extended FAT again and kept it under its IP hat, as was their wont[0] at the time. [0] Non-nativ…
FAT embedded a long/short name mapping algorithm that a modern system shouldn't need, but Microsoft had patents on. The main feature of FAT is simple native support on all platforms, Microsoft never had a financial incentive to add support for alternatives on Windows.
Re: The thinking behind the 32GB Windows Format limit on FAT32
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
tar
That stretches the definition of "a single file" when it is basically a filesystem itself.
Not necessarily, it's all relative really. But the point is, the limitations or expected limitations are only relevant until they're not..
Also why not tar a drive for archive if I want :}
Re: The thinking behind the 32GB Windows Format limit on FAT32
#24What is the practical difference between exFAT and FAT32 when you can format FAT32 up to many GB?
Is it just that they are different formats, and exFAT has taken over, in terms of pre-formatted USB media?
Re: The thinking behind the 32GB Windows Format limit on FAT32
#25TIL: In 2019, Microsoft released the exFAT [1] specs to a large group of vendors [2], including prominent Linux vendors. I.e. exFAT should now be preferred over FAT/NTFS for media used across different operating systems. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network
Unfortunately, this only applies to systems that actually have this (i.e. they were updated after exFAT released or released after and included this update). There will be sadly many systems that will never receive this update. But for a fun fact, if you see many embedded systems that say they can only support an SD card up to 32 GB, it is a soft limitation due to the fact that media over 32 GB are pre-formatted to e…
FAT32 only supports 4GB files though, so not sure how useful this is for a lot of media usecases.
Re: The thinking behind the 32GB Windows Format limit on FAT32
#26What is the practical difference between exFAT and FAT32 when you can format FAT32 up to many GB? Is it just that they are different formats, and exFAT has taken over, in terms of pre-formatted USB media?
FAT32 also has a 4 Go file size limit (think large video/VM files, DVD/Blu-ray images…)
Re: The thinking behind the 32GB Windows Format limit on FAT32
#27Maybe it's not for the worst, as otherwise there might have been less push for exFAT and this inefficiency would have persisted much later..?
Re: The thinking behind the 32GB Windows Format limit on FAT32
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
>TIL: In 2019, Microsoft released the exFAT [1] specs [...] I.e. exFAT should now be preferred over FAT/NTFS for media used across different operating systems. You seem to be very optimistic about how fast these get implemented into embedded devices.
I would imagine if embedded devices are being assembled and configured with filesize concerns, then exFAT would be the natural implementation they would opt for. Or do you mean updating/transitioning legacy embedded? The spec doesn't mention backwards compat, but does mention as a goal >Retain the simplicity of FAT-based file systems. I would like to test out if an input embed system is exFAT compat. And what might b…
Embedded devices often have a lifespan measured in decades. And for short-lived devices like consumer all-in-one printers (~4 years) it's not like every new model has a new firmware written from scratch. They get whatever the last model had, with a few updates for new device features. That might include exFAT, or it might not.
Re: The thinking behind the 32GB Windows Format limit on FAT32
#29I rarely read The Register. Is that the usual tone -- as if the author wishes they were Lady Whistledown, the gossip writer on Bridgerton?
Re: The thinking behind the 32GB Windows Format limit on FAT32
#30TIL: In 2019, Microsoft released the exFAT [1] specs to a large group of vendors [2], including prominent Linux vendors. I.e. exFAT should now be preferred over FAT/NTFS for media used across different operating systems. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network
I guess that's the best option for compatibility. But it's not journaled and single fat, very prone to corruption right and fixing errors could take a while for lager disk like external hdd. There's not really any good option in terms of reliability and compatibility I guess.
I have had issues with ntfs getting corrupted and losing file both in mac and linux at times so there's that risk with implementation too.