On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 01:38:57PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> 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.

With a sector of 512 bytes, it fat32 is apparently limit to 2 Tb. I'm
unclear whether a limit on the number of files becomes a problem. Vfat
might be analternative.


>
> -- hendrik
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

--
Haines Brown