EXFAT and Utorrent

[tec]

for you who don´t know what exfat is, it´s an "extended" version of fat32 so called fat64.

for you who knows why you bring this up you may ask, well. i formatted my harddrive to exfat and use that harddrive for utorrent downloads(you have to use command propt to format harddrive to exfat).

now to the problem, i belive that utorrent got bad compatilibity with exfat cause if files need to be checked it can stop(when starting utorrent that is), and if you stop the freezen file and try to force re-check utorrent crash!

the only way to bypass this seems to be to delete all (need to be checked files(torrents)

can the Creators please look this up

PS: i know i explain rather complicated please ask me if you got "problems"

To the most magnificent developers of bittorrent-downloader

[jewelisheaven]

... What OS? If it's FAT it's supported. Programs don't handle filesystems, Windows does.

If you're crashing this wouldn't be a feature request, it may be a found bugs or more likely troubleshooting.

What uT version? What OS? ... Can you even run HiJackThis on that mobile device?

[GTHK]

exFAT was first used in Windows Embedded CE 6.0, and was introduced to Vista in SP1.

[hermanm]

> exFAT (Extended File Allocation Table, aka FAT64) is a proprietary file system suited especially for flash drives

Seems kind of an odd file system to use for µTorrent downloads. Other than the novelty of using exFAT, what's the advantage over NTFS? It would seem easier for you to reformat your drive for NTFS (assuming it is a separate hard drive and not a flash drive) than using exFAT.

[Firon]

if it's crashing (it's filesystem-agnostic, save for the sparse files feature), then the exfat filesystem driver sucks. That's all.

[GTHK]

what's the advantage over NTFS?

According to the article I linked, it has reduced overhead.

[jewelisheaven]

... FAT is useful in smaller scenarios but it still lacks a journal. The problem isn't related to the filesystem, I don't think. Verifying it's Vista SP1 first and then 1.7.7 may be the problem. Remember the problem with "stuck" rechecking. I don't remember if it was introduced in 1.8, but it's gone now, so testing with the current beta is still recommended. It would also depend on the bluescreen message returned.

[Firon]

NTFS is still a much better choice. FAT is a very unreliable filesystem.

[tec]

hmm, well i use the latest utorrent, so that isn´t the problem.

Then if possible request could i ask you to make it more friendly with exfat if possible, or recommend how to do so?

ps: the only thing that goes wrong with exfat is this stuck recheck, other than that everything is working.

[Firon]

Honestly, it's probably a bug with the exFAT driver.

[tec]

kk, well is there a way to know if it can be fixed(i don´t think so)?

[DreadWingKnight]

Filesystem drivers can't be fixed at the application level.

[tec]

well i meant like driver fix/tweak/optimisation etc.

thank you for listening:)

[GTHK]

What's the exFAT formatting command?

[tec]

d: /fs:exfat /q /a:4096

(d: is the driver)

the good part with exfat is that it hardly gets fragmented, i don´t have any at all!

it goes rumors that it can´t get fragmented or will only get when it´s like 15% space left!

ps: i got over 100gb stored

[GTHK]

I'll be checking to see how it works with µT sometime today, just for the hell of it, after chkdsk finishes on this drive I'll install it on another drive for minor testing (no serious use, isn't it nice when you have a friend who's sick of something and just hands it to you? XD).

CHKDSK is verifying file data (stage 4 of 5)...

Windows replaced bad clusters in file 11375

of name \RESIDE~1.ISO.

Windows replaced bad clusters in file 11637

of name \RESIDE~2.ISO.

File data verification completed.

CHKDSK is verifying free space (stage 5 of 5)...

77 percent completed.

Been 2 ½ hours already, and it's been sitting at 77% >.<

Are there any settings on the exFAT? Like how NTFS has compression?

[jewelisheaven]

If you want to compare overhead... which is all I'm seeing touted... http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/2801/exfat_versus_fat32_versus_ntfs GTHK would you mind making some calculations for fresh formats of this "exfat"

EXT has something like ~4% overhead ( I recall formatting a 250GB a while ago ) and IIRC NTFS is only 9% overhead. And as FAT32 doesn't use a $BITMAP$ file for clusters, it's a bit over 10%... Unless this EXFAT is markedly under 8% (think 5 or 6) just use EXT.

[Firon]

I think the real overhead for NTFS can be lower than that. FAT lacks a feature called extents, which reduces the space required in the MFT for larger files.

In addition, files SMALLER than 1k can be stored in an MFT record, saving disk space/reducing fragmentation.

Plus, the whole data reliability thing kinda seels the deal for me.

[tec]

no i don´t think they are any special features on exfat

ps: i have done read write test on a partion with ntfs then exfat twice, exfat was the best on those.

[Greg Hazel]

If uTorrent crashes, can you post a dumpfile?

[GTHK]

GTHK would you mind making some calculations for fresh formats of this "exfat"

Is there a specific methodology I should use? Or should I just record file sizes, sizes on disk, and drive free space in various states (clean vs. lots of files)?

Sidenote, if µT does bug up, I'll try to get a minidump. Hopefully Vista installs correctly, my system stats aren't the most inspiring..

[jewelisheaven]

I meant if you're testing just raw overhead after format is all I would really look for. Ex: on a 250 GB hard drive, with EXT2 it formats to 226498 GiB available. Since 238418 GiB is the raw GiB for the hard drive, the difference of 11920 (5% of total) is the overhead.

It doesn't sound like uT would crash, it may be simialr to the re-check function which was fixed a while ago, where the Disk IO thread was stuck... so if it doesn't crash, using Task Manager to force a dump may also provide useful information.

[GTHK]

I just wanted to test how µT works on Vista, and get a minidump if something messes up. RAW overhead I can do though, if I can get it working (minor issues).

[Firon]

238,418 gigs? lol

[jewelisheaven]

yes, i used the wrong prefix. So sue me. In-fact I don't care about units I care about overhead