On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 12:02:37PM -0400, Haines Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 12:11:46AM +0200, Harald Arnesen via Dng wrote:
> > Haines Brown [07.08.2020 18:19]:
> >
> > > Yes, for sure. If you are right about the speed difference between
> > > NTFS and ext4, then is there another FS that can be accessed by a
> > > Windows machine that is not much slower than ext4?
> >
> > fat32. Or if you run a recent kernel on your Linux machine (Devuan 5.4
> > is ok), then exfat.
> > --
> > Hilsen Harald
>
> Hilsen, going to fat32 might be my bset bet if its speed is more like
> ext4 than ntfs. Is it the consensus that this is the case?

Isn't there a limit on the number of data blocks you can have
on a FAT volume?
Meaning that for large volumes you end up with absurdly large blocks.
And because you can't pack multiple files into a data block, this limits
the number of files you can have.

-- hendrik