Best format for USB flash drives nowadays?

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:29:43 -0400, JF Mezei
wrote:

On 2015-10-09 13:09, Alan Browne wrote:

Where FAT32 is concerned most of my flash cards are formatted in camera
(FAT32) and files there are about 32 MB. No need for anything larger.

Consider a HD movie that might be 6 to 8 gigs. Sometimes easier way to
transfer it is via USB.

Or you make a .ZIp backup of a collection of photos that exceeds 4GB
onto a .ZIP. The .ZIP file is greater than 4 gigs.

I think almost if not all zip utilities allow you to divide
the zip into 4GB portions.
Or just use exFAT.
I think the original question was about OS compatibility.
Linux, Mac and Windows support exFAT.
I read something about journaling not working well on flash
cards, which would probably exclude NTFS, and all the Unix extXs from
the OP's choice.
[]'s

It's easy enough to use ext4 without a journal using -O ^has_journal
for mke2fs. I use this on all any of my USB sticks that are not fat32.

Ant wrote:

...
I don't either, but it wouldn't shock me if there were. And yes, 98 was
quite good, stable. But I do recall a couple blue screens of death with
it. I don't recall (admittedly fuzzy here) a BSOD with XP.

Given XP's incrediable run, I'm surprised you never saw in BSOD :-) But
yeah - for the most part I found it quite stable, as I also did with
fully fully patched 98. 95 while neat (for Windows - it couldn't hold a
candle to System 7) was a frequent source of BSOD for me.

I have seen BSoDs in ALL Windows (v3.0+). I have never seen a Mac OS X
crash with errors so far. I have seen hard locked up machines on all
OSes though including Linux.

I had many a kernel panic in early OS X 10.5, and have had a few in 10.6
- usually a couple a year. Nothing to get excited about. Back in Classic
MacOS I had a crash every week, minimum, and sometimes that would cause
file corruption, unlike OS X.

I expect it is my gaming that makes my systems a bit more unstable.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:20:10 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters
wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:29:43 -0400, JF Mezei
wrote:

On 2015-10-09 13:09, Alan Browne wrote:

Where FAT32 is concerned most of my flash cards are formatted in camera
(FAT32) and files there are about 32 MB. No need for anything larger.

Consider a HD movie that might be 6 to 8 gigs. Sometimes easier way to
transfer it is via USB.

Or you make a .ZIp backup of a collection of photos that exceeds 4GB
onto a .ZIP. The .ZIP file is greater than 4 gigs.

I think almost if not all zip utilities allow you to divide
the zip into 4GB portions.
Or just use exFAT.
I think the original question was about OS compatibility.
Linux, Mac and Windows support exFAT.
I read something about journaling not working well on flash
cards, which would probably exclude NTFS, and all the Unix extXs from
the OP's choice.
[]'s

It's easy enough to use ext4 without a journal using -O ^has_journal
for mke2fs. I use this on all any of my USB sticks that are not fat32.

Yes, sure, but unless you use third party software
http://osxfuse.github.io/
http://www.ext2fsd.com

ext4 is not what the OP wanted - cross platform.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 2015-10-09 13:09, Alan Browne wrote:

Where FAT32 is concerned most of my flash cards are formatted in camera
(FAT32) and files there are about 32 MB. No need for anything larger.

Consider a HD movie that might be 6 to 8 gigs. Sometimes easier way to
transfer it is via USB.

Or you make a .ZIp backup of a collection of photos that exceeds 4GB
onto a .ZIP. The .ZIP file is greater than 4 gigs.

I think almost if not all zip utilities allow you to divide
the zip into 4GB portions.
Or just use exFAT.
I think the original question was about OS compatibility.
Linux, Mac and Windows support exFAT.
I read something about journaling not working well on flash
cards, which would probably exclude NTFS, and all the Unix extXs from
the OP's choice.
[]'s

It's easy enough to use ext4 without a journal using -O ^has_journal
for mke2fs. I use this on all any of my USB sticks that are not fat32.

Yes, sure, but unless you use third party software
http://osxfuse.github.io/
http://www.ext2fsd.com

ext4 is not what the OP wanted - cross platform.
[]'s

But OP mentioned other non-computer devices too. How can you do that?
--
Quote of the Week: "The eyeless ant asked God, 'Give me eye-lashes.'" --Georgian Proverb
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:04:10 -0500, (Ant) wrote:

On 2015-10-09 13:09, Alan Browne wrote:

Where FAT32 is concerned most of my flash cards are formatted in camera
(FAT32) and files there are about 32 MB. No need for anything larger.

Consider a HD movie that might be 6 to 8 gigs. Sometimes easier way to
transfer it is via USB.

Or you make a .ZIp backup of a collection of photos that exceeds 4GB
onto a .ZIP. The .ZIP file is greater than 4 gigs.

I think almost if not all zip utilities allow you to divide
the zip into 4GB portions.
Or just use exFAT.
I think the original question was about OS compatibility.
Linux, Mac and Windows support exFAT.
I read something about journaling not working well on flash
cards, which would probably exclude NTFS, and all the Unix extXs from
the OP's choice.
[]'s

It's easy enough to use ext4 without a journal using -O ^has_journal
for mke2fs. I use this on all any of my USB sticks that are not fat32.

Yes, sure, but unless you use third party software
http://osxfuse.github.io/
http://www.ext2fsd.com

ext4 is not what the OP wanted - cross platform.
[]'s

But OP mentioned other non-computer devices too. How can you do that?

OP's post

How about for TVs, Android devices, etc?
.....
Or should I just stick with FAT32 as I rarely encounter very large files, anyway?

The OP was worried about compatibility. I stand by my original
recommendation, use FAT32. If you have files bigger than 4Gb, use file
splitters (for storage) or use exFAT (check the TV etc is compatible).
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 10/11/2015 7:04 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-10-10 21:04, Ed Light wrote:
On 10/10/2015 7:26 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
Ed Light wrote:

On 10/9/2015 6:41 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

For interoperability it's best to use FAT32. I've never had any issue
with FAT32 at all in 20 years or so that it's been around

I based my post on my Windows 98 experience. It would crash often, and
you'd almost always find errors on the FAT 32 when running chkdisk.

I hadn't found an error when checking my previous USB flash drive, and
it was on my keychain getting battered around and rained on for a couple
years.

My fear would be if there were a problem writing to it, and the file
system got corrupted, maybe just at the written file.

Don't take counsel of your fears.


The fact is that FAT 32 is more vulnerable to damage than NTFS. Don't
believe it if you wish.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

On 2015-10-11 20:13, Ed Light wrote:
On 10/11/2015 7:04 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-10-10 21:04, Ed Light wrote:
On 10/10/2015 7:26 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
Ed Light wrote:

On 10/9/2015 6:41 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

For interoperability it's best to use FAT32. I've never had any
issue
with FAT32 at all in 20 years or so that it's been around

I based my post on my Windows 98 experience. It would crash often, and
you'd almost always find errors on the FAT 32 when running chkdisk.

I hadn't found an error when checking my previous USB flash drive, and
it was on my keychain getting battered around and rained on for a
couple
years.

My fear would be if there were a problem writing to it, and the file
system got corrupted, maybe just at the written file.

Don't take counsel of your fears.


The fact is that FAT 32 is more vulnerable to damage than NTFS. Don't
believe it if you wish.

You're missing my point which is that referring to Win98 is like talking
about old tires in the rain.

My cameras format to FAT32 and I've never lost any images. I photograph
far more than most.

Otherwise my USB keys are formatted for Mac.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 05:30:50 -0500, Mark Perkins
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:26:21 -0700, Michael Vilain
wrote:

If you don't care about files 4GB, exFAT may be OK if your target
supports it.

If you don't care about files 2GB, FAT32 will be OK.

What's the issue with files 2GB (and 4GB) on FAT32?


No idea where "2GB" came from.
FAT32 supports files up to 4GB - 1 byte.
4,294,967,295 bytes.
My son still uses FAT32 on his Win 7. I tried to convince him
to convert to NTFS, but he's an IT expert. Or so his university degree
says.

[]'s

[OT] HTF can someone study IT for 5 years and NOT know how to
read assembler ? Or even know the first thing about hardware ? Welcome
to the modern world.
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 10/12/2015 6:01 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-10-11 20:13, Ed Light wrote:
On 10/11/2015 7:04 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-10-10 21:04, Ed Light wrote:
On 10/10/2015 7:26 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
Ed Light wrote:

On 10/9/2015 6:41 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

For interoperability it's best to use FAT32. I've never had any
issue
with FAT32 at all in 20 years or so that it's been around

I based my post on my Windows 98 experience. It would crash often,
and
you'd almost always find errors on the FAT 32 when running chkdisk.

I hadn't found an error when checking my previous USB flash drive, and
it was on my keychain getting battered around and rained on for a
couple
years.

My fear would be if there were a problem writing to it, and the file
system got corrupted, maybe just at the written file.

Don't take counsel of your fears.


The fact is that FAT 32 is more vulnerable to damage than NTFS. Don't
believe it if you wish.

You're missing my point which is that referring to Win98 is like talking
about old tires in the rain.

My cameras format to FAT32 and I've never lost any images. I photograph
far more than most.

Otherwise my USB keys are formatted for Mac.

Maybe you don't multitask heavily with lots of tabs open?

OK. When you were using 98, apparently you were not getting crashes. But
crashes were common. So, if you had them and didn't run chkdsk, you
could think everything is ok. But if you ran chkdsk, you'd find errors
after virtually every crash.

Then with XP, it crashed too, and Win 7 does now, but NTFS rarely gets
errors in chkdsk. Win 98 for many people crashed its brains out. It was
so fragile.

Mishaps do happen between computers and USB sticks. So, errors could
happen on FAT 32 that NTFS would be more immune to.

I've had someone else's computer totally destroy a USB stick. Not a file
system thing, of course.



--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

On 2015-10-12 17:51, Ed Light wrote:
On 10/12/2015 6:01 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-10-11 20:13, Ed Light wrote:
On 10/11/2015 7:04 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-10-10 21:04, Ed Light wrote:
On 10/10/2015 7:26 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
Ed Light wrote:

On 10/9/2015 6:41 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

For interoperability it's best to use FAT32. I've never had any
issue
with FAT32 at all in 20 years or so that it's been around

I based my post on my Windows 98 experience. It would crash often,
and
you'd almost always find errors on the FAT 32 when running chkdisk.

I hadn't found an error when checking my previous USB flash drive,
and
it was on my keychain getting battered around and rained on for a
couple
years.

My fear would be if there were a problem writing to it, and the file
system got corrupted, maybe just at the written file.

Don't take counsel of your fears.


The fact is that FAT 32 is more vulnerable to damage than NTFS. Don't
believe it if you wish.

You're missing my point which is that referring to Win98 is like talking
about old tires in the rain.

My cameras format to FAT32 and I've never lost any images. I photograph
far more than most.

Otherwise my USB keys are formatted for Mac.

Maybe you don't multitask heavily with lots of tabs open?

Whatever that has to do with my USB keys is a freaking mystery to me.
At any time I have half a dozen basic apps open (browsers, mail,
calendar and so on) as well as several Excel sheets, often Word (all
for Mac, naturally), a virtual machine running Windows (XP) which is
typically running accounting S/W. Then of course Google Earht and
regular use of Photoshop and my own apps to process various data streams.

That's typical. When things get really warn there's basic video
editing, video conversions, and much more.

Which on Windows or Unix systems is not at all hairy. And in my Win98
days (oh so long ago) I usually had the system pretty heavily loaded as
well.


OK. When you were using 98, apparently you were not getting crashes. But

Of course I did. But I don't recall a FAT32 volume getting messed up.

crashes were common. So, if you had them and didn't run chkdsk, you
could think everything is ok. But if you ran chkdsk, you'd find errors
after virtually every crash.

Then with XP, it crashed too, and Win 7 does now, but NTFS rarely gets
errors in chkdsk. Win 98 for many people crashed its brains out. It was
so fragile.

Hmm .. doesn't match my world of the past - and I was a heavy user of
Win98 for photography, programming, office docs and much, much more.



Mishaps do happen between computers and USB sticks. So, errors could
happen on FAT 32 that NTFS would be more immune to.

Since to the very best of my recollection I've never had an issue with a
FAT32 formatted key, I'll either have to believe me or believe you've
had some very unlucky times. Or you abused the devices perhaps by
physically pulling them during a write or before a write post was complete.

Unix and Linux formally demand that you dismount a drive before
physically disconnecting it. Windows has always been wishy washy about
that going back to its atrocious DOS underpinnings of Win 3.x...


I've had someone else's computer totally destroy a USB stick. Not a file
system thing, of course.

Hmm - I miss Windows. Hahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha,,,,