Read more.New standard leverages PCI Express and NVMe interfaces and boosts capacities up to 128TB.
Read more.New standard leverages PCI Express and NVMe interfaces and boosts capacities up to 128TB.
Would have thought at that speed a tiny micro-SD card would just melt
Heat dissipation will be interesting ... the NVMe drive I upgraded my laptop with gets incredibly toasty in use (to the extent that if you configure the laptop with an NVMe drive from the factory it comes with a special heat shield).
Given that this will make SD Express basically just an NVMe drive, it could make a great addition to very small form factor motherboards - a microSD slot for your OS drive will take up a lot less room than an M.2...
Seems a bit odd combining FAT and NVMe. Or is exFAT actually more than just expanding on the size limitations of FAT? Why don't they use a more modern file system on these cards? FAT was designed with mechanical HDDs in mind and NVMe is designed with solid state storage in mind, it seems to me that there is going to have to be extra fiddling along the way to make them work properly together which is sure to add latency?
Please note that my username is "philehidiot" for a reason. I am a moron with a loud voice so feel free to point out how wrong I am.
I ... I honestly can't work out how to answer this.
Basically, FAT was designed when there was no realistic non-volatile sold state technology. It wasn't designed *for* mechanical media as such. FAT has a number of benefits, including a relatively low overhead which makes it ideal for embedded systems and portable storage.
exFAT is relatively modern (released in 2006) and was optimised for flash storage.
The wikipedia page is a lengthy, but interesting, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT
NVMe is just a drive interface, like SATA/IDE/SCSI. It's not like you'd recommend a different filesystem because someone chose an NVMe SSD over a SATA SSD. The interface is irrelevant to the choice of file system - the use case is far more important. The lightness of FAT is a good fit for portable storage.
I would have to disagree.
FAT was designed for a single sided floppy and very few blocks (under 4000) of storage. Originally it didn't even have directories just a fixed size root dir, so almost every aspect of the filesystem is a cludged bolt-on. It looks like exFAT adds a free space bitmap to speed finding free space, yay welcome to the 1980's, but I presume will still have to keep it's frightful allocation table chains in sync else it isn't FAT.
A decade or so ago in a 16 bit embedded system I threw out the existing FAT filesystem layer and wrote a slightly cut down MINIX fs driver. The limitations went away, performance went up, the code was simpler, I never looked back.
Edit: Note I could only abandon FAT in that project because we stopped using removable storage, so no-one could complain about stuffing media in their Windows PC and not being able to access it.
So maaaaaaaaaaany TB of space.... sorry, I mean 'hard drive Real Estate'.... and faster than my current SSD.
Sounds good.
Now make it affordable and I'll buy loads.
Surely the random access times are going to be an issue or we'd all just switch to this?
And thanks for trying to answer my question, guys. I was thinking that surely an interface optimised for older tech doesn't feed data into the storage media's controller in the most efficient way for the way that media behaves. Or something like that.
I remember years ago when we switched from FAT to NTFS and, whilst I can't remember why, the world was so much better, cleaner and more efficient. And the allocation table stuff is what I meant about exFAT - surely it still needs all that stuff?
I'm stumbling around in the dark here I must admit on the grounds of "from what I know this seems very obsolete and weird" and I can only assume it's due to someone in the standards group being set in their ways and unwilling to move forward? I see that all the time in my work.
First I'm still waiting for MicroSDXC/SDXC to break the 512GB barrier.. than we can talk about anything larger. As for the new SD Express standard, it will be interesting to see how they manage those data speeds without providing a cooling solution. Even at lower capacities.
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
We're going to need more PCIe lanes. All my slots are already filled up - double height GFX doesn't help that though.
Heat is a worry, My Lexar UHS-II cards get toasty when reading at the full 150MBs.
I am interested on the point of fast backups etc even if my camera don't full support them for writing initially (Until I get newer camera gear of course).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)