Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanwj
Would that have the possibility of changing performance at all?
|
FAT can actually be pretty fast because there is no security and no journaling. Ext4, NTFS and Apple Filesystem may all sometimes be slower, but are all far more reliable, don't have a low limitation of files in the root and have security.
There might be no difference in performance for the user, or it might be very slightly slower or slightly faster!
FAT32 and exFAT use multiple directory entries for long file names (VFAT extension), so Ext4, NTFS and APFS can sometimes be faster. FAT predates MS-DOS and has been "extended" about 5 times, the most famous being long filenames for Win95 (which was stupid, as NTFS was already nearly 3 years old, released in 1993 on NT3.1).
The only reason FAT is/was used was simplicity and compatibility. NT in theory could address exabytes in 1993, but exFAT was needed to sensibly use more than a 32 G Byte partition with FAT32. Floppies used FAT12.