Best formatting for external HD for use with MacOS and Windows
-
I want your opinions, please. I have an external drive that I'd like to reformat for use with both Mac and Windows. What's the best format?
My research is showing mixed results, though one thing I read pointed strongly to exFAT, which isn't a format I'm all that familiar with.
Ideas, please!
-
Depends on what you need. If you need files larger than 4GB then FAT won't cut it. Failing that, it is generally easier to get Windows to read HFS than Mac to read NTFS, at least if you don't want to drop any coin.
-
@Nic This is general storage. I don't like how NTFS is read-only by default on MacOS.
-
@Katie yeah, Windows is a bit of a pain in the ass about allowing access to the NTFS format, which is why I like HFS better if you need big files. You can get utilities to write NTFS on Mac, but you'll have to pay for them.. If you don't have any files larger than 4GB then exFAT is perfectly fine - that's usually what most USB drives are formatted with for compatibility.
-
Bottom line is that disks should not be shared as DAS / SAN between disparate systems like that. This is where NAS is the correct technology.
-
Agreed, but I was assuming this was just ad-hoc home storage, right Katie? If it is for a work application then I'll defer to SAM
-
Her Mac and her PC are both work machines. I'm assuming that it is work related.
-
This post is deleted! -
@scottalanmiller Yes, ad-hoc storage - I have a 1TB hard drive that I want to format in the most efficient way possible for use with both my work machines.
-
A small ReadyNAS, Synology or Buffalo two bay NAS unit would be ideal. RAID 1 and SMB/CIFS sharing.
-
agreed, a NAS is the way to go.
If you have a single printer you want to share with both computers, you don't want to have to move a cable between the systems - you buy a network attached printer and share it with both.. the same applies to storage.
-
Never thought of comparing to a printer but that works well.
-
The only reason I can think of for an external drive over doing it the way SAM and Dashrender suggestion is if you need to move a large amount of data more quickly. USB can be faster than over the network.
-
@Nic said:
The only reason I can think of for an external drive over doing it the way SAM and Dashrender suggestion is if you need to move a large amount of data more quickly. USB can be faster than over the network.
Except the drives themselves are generally the bottleneck there. Unless you get a Drobo 5D the drives will be too slow for it to matter.
And with NAS you can copy from one to the other immediately. No need to unplug. And you can use over the wireless.
-
True, but aren't the drives + USB still potentially faster than wireless?
-
@Nic said:
True, but aren't the drives + USB still potentially faster than wireless?
Yes but you can't count the limitations of a "bonus feature" as a negative against core features. That's like having a sports car that is faster than another and can haul a boat. But going for the slower option that can't haul a boat because the faster one can't maintain its speed advantage while hauling a boat
-
Agreed, but if all she needs to do is move a shit ton of stuff between two computers, and doesn't want to buy more than the external drive she already has, then why not?
If all she needs is some additional storage without additional purchase, just plug the drive into one of the computers and share it over the network from there. Agreed that the convenience of having the storage available over the network probably outweighs the speed issue. But I have just used the sneakernet method when copying my library of movies from one computer to another.
-
@nic I have to assume you're talking about USB 3 being faster than LAN speeds. My personal tests have shown a NAS on 100 Mb LAN copies much faster than USB 2.0.
-
I was assuming wireless, which would get lesser throughput. If on a wired LAN then I agree that would be faster. If it is a USB 3.0 drive how much difference would that make?
-
Looks like USB 3.0 supports up to 5 Mb, the SATA drives claim 6 Mb, but I'm sure the single drive would be the bottle neck on the USB 3.0 interface.
I guess I never assume wireless for work networks, at least not for It personal. But maybe that's just me with my blinders on. I avoid wireless for anything more than casual surfing.
