Here's a question for the techies :-)
In my sort out of what data I keep where, and how, I formatted 4 x 2TB
SSDs as exFAT so I could use them with both Windows Machines and Macs.
As a check that I am backing things up properly I am doing directory size checks and there is an enormous difference between the NTFS and exFAT
total directory size. One directory contains nearly 13,000 small files of Flight Simulator Scenery and TreeSize Free is measuring the NTFS directory
at 673 MB and the exFAT at 7.6 GB. The overall impact is that FS2002 is
3.6 GB on NTFS and 32.9 GB on exFAT.
It makes it look like I've screwed up my backup but the number of files is the same so it seems to be just the different file systems. Does that make sense?
Even so, that does seem a little excessive.... are lots of the files
really really tiny?
(You may like to know that macOS can read NTFS disks, btw - so you could
have one read/write exFAT and the rest NTFS, if workloads suited that.
Or leave them plugged into one machine and access over the network,
where it doesn't matter what the underlying filesystem is as the host >computer handles it. Like a NAS. Weren't you going to put these in the
NAS anyway?)
I think I need to go off and see if WD do a driver for their NVMe.
On 11/08/2021 in message <xn0n1ihyz1f4415004@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:
I think I need to go off and see if WD do a driver for their NVMe.
WD dashboard says I am using an unsupported driver but doesn't tell me how
to get an updated one :-(
I have put a question in to WD support.
On 11 Aug 2021 at 10:37:20 BST, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Here's a question for the techies :-)
In my sort out of what data I keep where, and how, I formatted 4 x 2TB
SSDs as exFAT so I could use them with both Windows Machines and Macs.
As a check that I am backing things up properly I am doing directory size
checks and there is an enormous difference between the NTFS and exFAT
total directory size. One directory contains nearly 13,000 small files of
Flight Simulator Scenery and TreeSize Free is measuring the NTFS directory >> at 673 MB and the exFAT at 7.6 GB. The overall impact is that FS2002 is
3.6 GB on NTFS and 32.9 GB on exFAT.
It makes it look like I've screwed up my backup but the number of files is >> the same so it seems to be just the different file systems. Does that make >> sense?
It's just the difference in filesystems. They don't store files by the
byte, they store in blocks. Some filesystems will store the leftover bit
at the end of a file, and tiny files, cleverly - exFAT does not.
You can choose what size blocks your exFAT is formatted at formatting
time, but they've probably defauled to 64kb on a 2TB filesystem. Which
means on average 32kb of waste empty space per file, if the file sizes
are evenly distributed.
Even so, that does seem a little excessive.... are lots of the files
really really tiny?
(You may like to know that macOS can read NTFS disks, btw - so you could
have one read/write exFAT and the rest NTFS, if workloads suited that.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 415 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 35:34:29 |
Calls: | 8,720 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 13,276 |
Messages: | 5,956,176 |