Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I might not have searched around really hard enough the answer of this, my question, but I really would like to know why.

share|improve this question
Do you have any sources for your assertion? I wouldn't think the the differences would be that great, but the journaling, ACLs, and other features that NTFS supports that exFAT doesn't may cause enough extra writes to notably shorten lifetime. – afrazier Nov 28 '11 at 1:22
I might have to edit the question to "Does exFAT give longer life expectancy to flash drives, than NTFS?" link – Karolinger Nov 28 '11 at 2:14
up vote 3 down vote accepted

There are some big differences between NTFS and ExFAT - the biggest one being that ExFAT was specifically made for removable media and NTFS was specifically made for fixed-disks. But there are some other reasons why NTFS causes more disk activity than ExFAT:

  • NTFS has journalling which must be written to during every operation. ExFAT doesn't.
  • NTFS has a more complex on-disk structure with alternative data streams, higher precision filesizes, multiple attributes, hardlinks, encryption, sparse files and so on, all of which mean putting simple files onto the disk is marginally more expensive.
  • NTFS more agressively moves stuff on disk to reduce fragmentation during file writes, whereas ExFAT just happily fragments the files.
  • NTFS tries to organise itself on disk in such a way that multi disk-platter systems can take better advantage of it - this often leads to duplication of data when the disk has lots of space available to allow for faster reads from disk. ExFAT doesn't care.
share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .