Quote:
Originally Posted by darkjedi007
Modern flash devices can sustain tens of thousands of write/erase cycles nowadays and the lifecycle of flash drives are several years at best. By the time the sectors are worn out, devices 10 times larger will be equally cheap. I doubt WM can even read NTFS file systems anyway. As long as you utilize the safely remove devices function, NTFS is an effective way to transport large files.
exFAT is apparently a new filesystem that was created along with Windows Vista, but it seems to have limited implementation so far. It allows for larger file sizes like NTFS, but none of the disadvantages like caching and more intensive read/write.
|
exFAT was created in part because NTFS' impact on NAND flash memory. The reason NTFS is bad for flash is because of increased I/O operations caused by the journaling feature in NTFS. While SSDs can handle NTFS and similar File Systems, the quality of the flash chips in removable drives and cards is much, much lower and are not designed for read/write operations that file systems designed for disks call for. On top of that, block sizes can also affect the life of a flash drive, as it can only be written in whole blocks. If you create a FS with a larger block size using NTFS, you are only asking for drastically reduced life.