On 11/20/2009 01:06 PM, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
Bruno Wolff III<bruno@xxxxxxxx> writes:
Note that images greater than 4 GiB (which is less than what fits on a DVD
by a few hundred MiB) are still a problem. People using FAT for a file system
have a maximum file size of 4 GiB. So providing larger images for download is
going to give some people problems.
I'm wondering what the collective wisdom is on FAT and flash memory. If
one doesn't care about MS products, does anyone really need to use FAT?
I've been formatting my USB flash drives with ext3 or ext4 for a while
now. Mostly it was because I was sick of the filenames and permissions
getting trashed, but if there was a filesize limit I dodged all the
better. So far the only thing that failed with ext3 was when I tried
sticking a ext3 flash into my Google G1 Android (linux) phone. That has
also got to be a prime example of irony. The only other case I needed a
FAT FS was when upgrading the firmware on an Asus mobo from the BIOS.
Most Linux filesystems do a lot more writing (journals, et al) than
FAT does. Since you have a limited number of write cycles on a FLASH
memory, I'd tend to reserve those for real work, not updating journals,
bad block lists, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks@xxxxxxxx -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- "How does that damned three seashell thing work?" -
- - Sylvester Stallone, "Demolition Man" -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
