Best file system for a 64gb micro-SDHC card?

[JakeD]

Hi all,

I bought a micro-SDHC card (64gb) to use in my Windows 7 PC and my XP
laptop, as a convenient way of storing and transporting files between the
two machines.

The card came formatted as FAT. Would it be worth re-formatting it as exFAT
- or even NTFS?

Also: Both machines have an SDHC card reader and spare USB2 ports. I could
use either one to plug the card into. Does it make any difference which I
use, in terms of performance, reliability etc.)?

Many thanks,

JD

 

[Flasherly]

Hi all,

I bought a micro-SDHC card (64gb) to use in my Windows 7 PC and my XP
laptop, as a convenient way of storing and transporting files between the
two machines.

The card came formatted as FAT. Would it be worth re-formatting it as exFAT
- or even NTFS?

Also: Both machines have an SDHC card reader and spare USB2 ports. I could
use either one to plug the card into. Does it make any difference which I
use, in terms of performance, reliability etc.)?

Many thanks,

JD

The USB ports further require a token chipped SDHC transfer protocol,
which may or not be at some variance from a provisional port chipped
for SDHC by the computer manufacturer, put in there, just so to temper
a call you assumed contractually and for having bought it.

Do, however, note how the SDHC is provided, as formatted, as the most
advantageous form given by distribution;- there's really no reason,
otherwise, at least as far I can see, for the manufacturer to
denigrate their product by placing on it anything less than what is in
their best interest.

Unless, of course, you're SONY and provide SDHC chips made from a pile
of specially composted shit, which is my impression of my SONY 32G
SDHC chip I, obviously, though nonetheless mistakenly assumed
sufficient to have bought for some vague reason equal in nature to
corruption the SDHC readily will evince, most assuredly.

 

[JakeD]

Do, however, note how the SDHC is provided, as formatted, as the most
advantageous form given by distribution;- there's really no reason,
otherwise, at least as far I can see, for the manufacturer to
denigrate their product by placing on it anything less than what is in
their best interest.

The card I received was formatted as FAT, but then, it was sold for use in
"cameras and mobile devices". I only want to use it in my Wondows PC's, so
I have tried, for the first time, formatting it to exFAT, which I gather
has a number of advantages over FAT. It seems to work fine on my XP laptop
and my Win7 PC. I guess time will tell how exFAT performs. It'll be
interesting to compare.

jd

 

[Flasherly]

The card I received was formatted as FAT, but then, it was sold for use in
"cameras and mobile devices". I only want to use it in my Wondows PC's, so
I have tried, for the first time, formatting it to exFAT, which I gather
has a number of advantages over FAT. It seems to work fine on my XP laptop
and my Win7 PC. I guess time will tell how exFAT performs. It'll be
interesting to compare.

jd

Lots of utilities, as well, to do it with -- (an older one I ran some
tests with CrystalDiskMark3_0_2f)

HPUSBF.EXE J: -FS:FAT32 -A:4096 -Q
HPUSBF.EXE J: -FS:FAT32 -A:8192 -Q
HPUSBF.EXE J: -FS:FAT32 -A:16K -Q
HPUSBF.EXE J: -FS:FAT32 -A:32K -Q
HPUSBF.EXE J: -FS:NTFS -Q
HPUSBF.EXE J: -FS:FAT32 -Q
HP USB Disk Storage Format Tool, Version 1.00.012 (11/13/2003)
Copyright (c) 2003 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.


Ended up sticking with manuf stock provisions, tho.

 

[JakeD]

Lots of utilities, as well, to do it with -- (an older one I ran some
tests with CrystalDiskMark3_0_2f)

HPUSBF.EXE J: -FS:FAT32 -A:4096 -Q
HPUSBF.EXE J: -FS:FAT32 -A:8192 -Q
HPUSBF.EXE J: -FS:FAT32 -A:16K -Q
HPUSBF.EXE J: -FS:FAT32 -A:32K -Q
HPUSBF.EXE J: -FS:NTFS -Q
HPUSBF.EXE J: -FS:FAT32 -Q
HP USB Disk Storage Format Tool, Version 1.00.012 (11/13/2003)
Copyright (c) 2003 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.


Ended up sticking with manuf stock provisions, tho.

I have that HP tool (V2.1.8) but it didn't seem to offer exFAT formatting,
so I just quick-formatted the SD card using Win7. If I remember correctly,
one good thing about exFat is that you can pull the flash drive out
prematurely, without causing any big problems, as can happen with NTFS, if
I remember correctly. I also seem to recall that an NFTS drive has a
tendency to associate itself to one particular machine - or something like
that. I may be wrong.

jd

 

[Flasherly]

I have that HP tool (V2.1.8) but it didn't seem to offer exFAT formatting,
so I just quick-formatted the SD card using Win7. If I remember correctly,
one good thing about exFat is that you can pull the flash drive out
prematurely, without causing any big problems, as can happen with NTFS, if
I remember correctly. I also seem to recall that an NFTS drive has a
tendency to associate itself to one particular machine - or something like
that. I may be wrong.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least - I avoid NTFS except for a token
volume (on traditional platters) for when dealing with potential +4G
files. Hadn't heart that about exFat, premature pull safety factor,
though doubt my SONY chip avails itself to most anything. Will look
into it sometime. The Sony readily has strong tendencies to exhibit
corruption and little tolerance for any extensive, though normal
manipulations such as complex/staggered file transfers and
establishing directories. It's simply not robust. I've also a
quad-channel Patriot XP Rage. Class 10 and amazing speeds, but just a
USB flashstick. Use it all the time and probably will go back to
that brand if in need. Flash sticks, SDHC, top-notch wise and best
performers, seems to me there's a lot finesse involved in getting the
best, apart from a line of crap provided by what manufactures state;-
that and the benchmarks are hidden or misskewed from actual tests
carried over, often, too wide a field of offerings to practically
derive any sense of real performance for expected standards.