Very handy.In any case, Im going to reformat this backup drive for the Synology NAS to NTFS (using m Win PC). To do this, we reformat all our drives to exFAT which allows us to read and write to the drives using either a PC or a Mac. It also means that they need to work on both PC’s and Mac’s. We’re constantly handing projects off to different people to work on different parts and that means these projects need to be mobile. You can quickly mount and unmount from the menu bar app, and the app allows full access to NTFS files so you can read, write, copy, delete, and transfer them without worry.Warning! Technical stuff ahead! We use a lot of external drives for media work and storage. Living in your Mac menu bar, NTFS for Mac lets you quickly and easily work with drives formatted to the NTFS format, even external drives.I'm using a MAC to format the hard drive and I've been unsuccessful.Now, the question I’ve always had was: 1) What allocation unit size should I pick for exFAT? and 2) Am I loosing read/write speed when I pick exFAT over NTFS?On the Settings tab click the Show Mac files radio button under Dual-format CDs/DVDs and click OK. Can anyone help with this. My goal is to be able to remove the hard drive from my Nvidia Shield and plug it into my friends TV and watch the movies there. I'm trying to use my external HD to transfer movies from my Nvidia Shield to it.
We recommend exFAT and FAT32 format for you. Then you will see a pop-up that asks for Name, Format, and Scheme for the external hard drive. Click the Erase on the top of the menu. These aren’t the same!!! 1 kilobyte = 1000 bytes (or 1024 bytes depending on context). First, a lot of people confuse the default NTFS file size of 4096 bytes with the exFAT option of 4096 kilobytes. For question #1, doing a Google search gives you some answers, but also leaves you with a lot of head scratching. Should I Format My Ntfs External Hard Drive Software Called GpartedThe GParted Live CD image can be written directly to a USB flash drive.For questions #2, I’ve always been concerned that I may be limiting my speed when I pick the exFAT format vs. There is no right size, there are tradeoffs, but for us, it works just fine.Luckily, you can use software called gparted to increase the size of the virtual. It’s the default the computer picks for me and I’ve read several places where it was at least alluded to being a good size. For example, if you have a file sized 512KB and you have 128KB allocation unit size, your file will be saved in 4 units in the disk (512KB/128KB).If your file’s size is 500KB and you have 128KB AUS, your file still be saved in 4 units in the disk because as mentioned above 128KB is the smallest size of an allocation unit. Your actual data will be separated to those units while saving to the disk. Credit due to original poster.AUS – Allocation Unit size – It is the smallest data block on the disk. Hope this helps.I found this on internet. As for the Allocation Unit Size, I’m comfortable with the 256 kilobytes size. ExFAT gives us the option to work on either a PC or a Mac and it may be a bit faster for us and the type of work we do. But, here’s the trade-off, using large AUS, significantly again, improves the disk reading performance. And as a side effect, the number of files to store on the disk is reduced due to same problem, last AU not being used fully. And the operating system reads only that AUSd much data at a low level disk read operation.Those being said, using large AUS significantly reduces the free space utilization due to not using the last allocation unit completely. You can observe this behaviour on file properties screen on Windows, what is your file size and how much space this file actually covers on the disk. Microsoft excel for mac free download torrentAlso you can compute the free space utilization according to your file sizes.I am a software engineer, and have implemented the embedded code for multiple file systems including FAT32.The above is true, however this are a few more complications to the equation. Think using large AUS in reverse, same category problems and improvements, but in reverse…So, what is the conclusion here? If you will store large, I mean “large!”, files on the disk, higher AUS will give you appreciable read performance while reducing the file count and free space…Which AUS you should use? This depends on how much your average file size is. Imagine, O.S makes couple of disk reads to completely read a GB sized file!.Using small AUS improves the free space utilization but reduces the disk read performance. Typical flash devices are PAGE based meaning they are erased and written a page at a time. SSD’s are implemented using FLASH devices. Having larger AUS will likely allow the allocation of larger caches in RAM so data is transferred from the disk into the caches improving data throughput.One fine interesting part about allocation units, especially with respect to solid state drives. The best selection for AUS is a balance of the typical file sizes you work with.Another part of the equation is that most file systems have caching mechanisms which load one or more AUS (based on sectors or clusters if you want to google how it is done). Using small AUS does fix this however it causes the need for larger allocation tables used to track each available AUS. It might be possible to find the page size by setting up different allocation unit sizes and performing various write throughput tests. I wouldn’t expect this to be available except to people who design SSD’s or who work with custom SSD storage devices, but I thought I would provide the information for completeness.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorGary ArchivesCategories |