Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Panasonic Working On 2-Terabyte SD Cards

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the never-delete-another-snapshot dept.

Data Storage 270

An anonymous reader writes "SD cards with a theoretical maximum capacity of 2TB are in development by Panasonic and the SD Association, it has been announced. The technology is called 'Secure Digital Extended Capacity', or 'SDXC', and Panasonic has announced it will soon show off a 64GB SDXC card. Using the new technology, read/write speeds are set to hit 300MBps. SanDisk and Sony are using the same standard to develop Extended Capacity cards in Sony's Memory Stick Pro and Memory Stick Micro range. SDXC utilises Microsoft's new exFAT file system — AKA 'FAT 64' — which first appeared in Windows Vista SP1, and has a theoretical file size limit of 16 exbibytes." Reader xlotlu adds a note about the "proprietary exFAT file system, which is available for licensing under NDA. There are currently no specific patents on exFAT, but its legal status is uncertain since it's based on FAT. The FAT patents have been previously upheld in court."

cancel ×

270 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They're talking about address space (5, Informative)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26378975)

This article is absolute blithering bullshit. They're talking about the interface / file systems' _addressable_ size. Compared to actually achieving higher storage densities, that's about as hard as pulling a number out of the air. It has absolutely nothing to do with the technology needed to fit 2TB or any other number of bytes into whatever little card.

And oooh theyre making a 64GB card but "working on" a 2TB card? Yeah right, so only a 30-fold increase in density left to go!

Then he goes on to discuss throughput as if that has anything to do with it....

Re:They're talking about address space (5, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379049)

No! They're working on a 2 TiB card and have a 64 GiB card just about ready. They have a theoretical limit of 16 EiB!

Get with the times, accept the ibi!

(Fuck ibi. 1 KB = 1024 bytes.)
(Fuck this article. Might as well say Sony is working on a new battery that will recharge in less than 1 minute and last for days, while Intel is working on 32 nm CPUS, and later, 20 nm!)

Re:They're talking about address space (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379161)

Get with the times, accept the ibi!

Why? Exabyte is 2^40, GB 2^30, and MB 2^20 - simple.

Re:They're talking about address space (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379801)

I'm joking. I hate ibi.

Re:They're talking about address space (1)

Starayo (989319) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380301)

Who the hell thought that "ibi" would be a good replacement anyway? Some sort of tongue twister enthusiast group?

Re:They're talking about address space (4, Funny)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380425)

Peter Piper, from the Peck of Pickled Pepper organization.

Re:They're talking about address space (1, Troll)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380313)

I know. ibi needs to die.

Re:They're talking about address space (4, Insightful)

Shrubbman (3807) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379221)

No, the file system may support it but the SDXC standard will top out at 2TB. That way, after you buy all new kit this round they can get you to buy something else when they come up with their NEXT standard. It's called planned obsolescence, see the previous transition from SD to SDHC and this forthcoming transition from SDHC to SDXC. You really think they aren't planning to milk this cow every couple of years for as long as they can, rather than do it right and just come up with ONE standard that'll have headroom in the hardware logic to match that 16 EiB limit on the file system.

Re:They're talking about address space (4, Funny)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379263)

No, the file system may support it but the SDXC standard will top out at 2TB. [...] It's called planned obsolescence

What are you talking about? 640k should be enough for anybody!

Re:They're talking about address space (2, Insightful)

andy_t_roo (912592) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379721)

640k may be enough, but only if not many people talk about it.
I think that some sets of comments here on /. could end up being > 640k -- the 36 comments that this page is up to take 112k.

Re:They're talking about address space (1, Informative)

Samah (729132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380153)

As amusing as that "quote" is, it's an urban myth. ;)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15180#fn* [nybooks.com]

Yeah.... no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26379293)

The 2 TB comes from Moore's law running out due to feature size being atomicly fine. Look for them sometime between 2017 and 2020.

Re:They're talking about address space (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379629)

At 2 TB you have room for hours of 8K 120fps 3d stereo video. You don't likely need more, so as long as your camera is backwards compatible, you won't have much reason to upgrade.

Of course, it will be so ridiculously cheap to upgrade that you will anyway. I thought I would carry my 4GB SD cards onto my next camera, but by the time I upgraded cameras, they were throwing in 16GB SDHC cards with purchase!

Re:They're talking about address space (2, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379883)

7680x4320 (8K) x 120 (fps) x 2 (3D) x 3 (lame-o 24 bit color) = 22.247314453125 GB/sec. 1 hour is 78.213214874267578125 TB.

Oh, you meant compressed? I don't accept compression at the source level!

Re:They're talking about address space (2, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380479)

Most scenes aren't actually as entropic as all that, so lossless compression could almost certainly be applied. In particular, I'd be absolutely shocked if, in any but contrived scenarios, a stereoscopic image pair requires anything close to double the storage of a single image.

Your point is valid in that 2TB isn't actually all that much, for really tweaky video; but lossless compression should be considered.

Re:They're talking about address space (1, Funny)

wooferhound (546132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380059)

""At 2 TB you have room for hours of 8K 120fps 3d stereo video.""

You could fit all your porn on one SD Card.

Re:They're talking about address space (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380167)

You insensitive clod. I can already fit all my porn on one SD card.

Re:They're talking about address space (1)

jomiolto (1092375) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380409)

You could fit all your porn on one SD Card.

Nope. No, I couldn't (but I'm sure you didn't want to know what).

Re:They're talking about address space (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379829)

Normally I'd agree.
But after SDXC, they've run out of good options for acronyms.

SDUC (Ultra)
SDxC (xTreme!)
SDSC (Super)

Re:They're talking about address space (5, Funny)

vlad30 (44644) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380557)

Normally I'd agree. But after SDXC, they've run out of good options for acronyms.

SDUC (Ultra) SDxC (xTreme!) SDSC (Super)

SDPL (Plaid) They'll go Plaid

Re:They're talking about address space (4, Informative)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379397)

No! They're working on a 2 TiB card and have a 64 GiB card just about ready. They have a theoretical limit of 16 EiB!

very doubtful actually. With a magnetic media, the odd division of the disk into sectors nearly always meant each new layout was a different, non-standard size. Drive manufactures in that case found every way possible to round up, including using 1000 bytes as a KB when it is only a KiB. Flash forward to... well... flash. When making the circuitry, it actually takes less work and programming (generally) to round out all address spaces to a given digit to be used. In addition there are very standardized chip memory sizes for flash. I don't know specifically if Panasonic is going to disregard the standard chip sizes and only shoot for KiB, but that's the case far less frequently with flash than with standard rotating hard drives.

Re:They're talking about address space (2, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379899)

...
The 1000/1024 fiasco is due to marketing, nothing more.

Re:They're talking about address space (3, Informative)

sidyan (110067) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379933)

Drive manufactures in that case found every way possible to round up, including using 1000 bytes as a KB when it is only a KiB.

Actually, the size of a KiB (Kibibyte) [wikipedia.org] is not in question, it's most certainly 1024 bytes. The kB (Kilobyte) [wikipedia.org] on the other hand, is used by drive manufacturers to mean 1000 bytes, and in this they are only following IEC, IEEE and ISO standards.

Re:They're talking about address space (3, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380217)

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the standard came *after* the HDD manufactures used to abuse the 1000/1024 for their benefit?

Re:They're talking about address space (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380399)

Pretty much. I had this discussion constantly about 10 years ago. It was ill-defined then, though the common assumption was 1K = 1024. The abuse by HDD manufacturers spurred the development of actual definitions.

Re:They're talking about address space (1)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380493)

Ahh, duh... I reversed KB and KiB in my head when I responded to that... No wonder the parent to my original post confused me so much.

Re:They're talking about address space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26379527)

I can already tell this thread is going to be fun ...

Re:They're talking about address space (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379547)

Amen.

Re:They're talking about address space (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379353)

Yeah, I came in here to point out how silly this is. There's no announcement about any hardware in the pipeline. They're planning on using a filesystem built on FAT but with a 2TB theoretical limit? Who cares? There are better filesystems than FAT with theoretical limits much higher than 2TB.

In fact, the bigger question in my mind is, why is Microsoft coming out with a new version of FAT to support bigger filesystems? Wouldn't the effort be better spent on figuring out how to kill FAT once and for all and replace it with something that doesn't completely suck?

Re:They're talking about address space (2, Interesting)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379749)

It could be *much* worse.
It could be based on NTFS.

I still cant understand why Microsoft is the only company who hasnt been able to make fragmentation resistant file systems
Hell OS/2 had HPFS which didnt fragment and that was ages ago and made partly by Microsoft.

Or maybe they desire the 'gradual slow down' effect that fragmentation causes.
So they release a new version of Windows just in time and advertise that its even faster, and it does actually seem faster.

Re:They're talking about address space (2, Interesting)

geniusj (140174) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379981)

Don't worry.. In the coming years, fragmentation won't matter nearly as much. On will come the log-structured filesystems and their ilk to replace the heavily disk-tuned mainstream filesystems we use today.

Re:They're talking about address space (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380595)

I still cant understand why Microsoft is the only company who hasnt been able to make fragmentation resistant file systems
Hell OS/2 had HPFS which didnt fragment and that was ages ago and made partly by Microsoft.

Bullshit. Many filesystems can and do experience fragmentation; fragmentation in NTFS is only such a big deal because of the existence of defragmentation tools. One of the new features of ext4 is an online defragmenter [wikipedia.org] ; there was an ext2 offline defragmenter, but nothing for ext3. XFS [wikipedia.org] has an online defragmenter as well. OS X's HFS+ also does limited automatic defragmentation [apple.com] .

Re:They're talking about address space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380947)

The online defragmenter for ext4 is not only a defragger but it will also make existing files use extents.

FAT/NTFS can get fragmented quite badly.
ext3 and so on rarely go past 2-3% fragmentation.

Re:They're talking about address space (4, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379977)

> Wouldn't the effort be better spent on figuring out how to kill FAT once and for all and
> replace it with something that doesn't completely suck?

1. NTFS is to complex and undocumented to be used in embedded consumer electronics.

2. Microsoft needs to keep control over the file system used in consumer electronics. If they hadn't offered this up (for a small fee of course) vendors might have been forced to look elsewhere... at the many filesystems in Linux or BSD that easily scale to the sizes required and have free reference implementations available, although the GPL would preclude many embedded vendors from directly using many of the more popular ones's code.

If I had to guess Microsoft will give em a sweet deal on the license fees so long as they give desktop linux some patent hell on implementing support, thus allowing SuSE to ride their trojan horse again.

And from the 2TB upper limit I'm guessing the are not reworking the maximum block size so there will still eventually have to a "LBA48" style incompatibility breakage at some point. Because 2T on a full size SD card isn't decades away.

2TB? exFAT? (3, Interesting)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379031)

Well even if I would take so many pictures on my camera that I'd need twice the size of the library of congress to hold them all, not too happy about some proprietary filesystem (assuming it isn't ro/rw on all platforms yet).

But still, I would buy one just so I could take it out of my pocket whenever I was having a problem so I could say, "Well, this was possible, so...." despite never using it.

</humor></criticism>

Re:2TB? exFAT? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26379297)

not too happy about some proprietary filesystem (assuming it isn't ro/rw on all platforms yet).

Wikipedia indicates that Vista SP1+ is the only OS to support it. At all. Oh, and maybe Windows CE too. Wasn't that the only advantage of FAT32? So instead of designing a lightweight, flash-oriented FS from scratch, they bolt some extensions onto their ancient crap?

Re:2TB? exFAT? (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380609)

Or, instead of being consumed by NIH syndrome, they could find some nice BSD-licensed FS to use.

Re:2TB? exFAT? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379585)

not too happy about some proprietary filesystem (assuming it isn't ro/rw on all platforms yet).

Is there any decent modern FS that is reliably read/write on Win/*nix/osx platforms? I'm still looking for one.

Re:2TB? exFAT? (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379771)

ext3? I hear you can get it on Windows without too much trouble.

Re:2TB? exFAT? (2, Informative)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380011)

The problem with ext3 is the same as with NTFS. They are journaling file systems, meaning that they do a lot of read/writing to the media. This is no problem with hard drives but flash media have just a limited amount of these. That's why non journaling file systems are employed on them. Mainly some kind of VFAT but ext2 would also do the job quite nicely. Problem is, that ext2 is not supported on the Windows platform as a default option. Additional installation is not an option for the avarage Joe. The bigger media will have some sort for FAT for the same reason. I'm qurious, is this new version of FAT also readable on non Windows platforms? Anyway, if you feel like it, it should be no problem to reformat them to ext2. Just your Windows friends will look a bit surprised that it seems unformatted. If you go more into the thing, you probably can also partition that thing like normal USB flash media, put a standard VFAT in one partition to it's limit and fill the rest with ext 2 to 'hide' your info from your clueless friends / boss / whatever. Or you put an array of normal FAT partitions on it with their maximum limitations. Did I miss something?

Re:2TB? exFAT? (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380449)

NTFS doesn't absolutely suck, and it works on all of 'em.

Mac has MacFUSE... though I can't comment on that personally.

Re:2TB? exFAT? (2, Insightful)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380563)

Ext2.

There are plenty of available drivers.
If MSFT wanted to roll their own, they could base their ext2 driver off of the one of the ones in one of the BSDs. Why the fuck is MSFT reinventing the wheel again? :(

Re:2TB? exFAT? (1)

inamorty (1227366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380109)

either i don't get it or that should be <humour />

Re:2TB? exFAT? (1)

Redlazer (786403) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380389)

exFAT is Windows Vista SP1 and Windows CE only so far.

Theres some weird concerns with who-owns-what apparantly.

They can realease whatever file system they want - I can still format it to NTFS or XFS.

-Fred

Re:2TB? exFAT? (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380591)

They *really* need to use an existing FS that has a driver in one of the BSDs. 'Twould be really nice if the EU would turn up the heat on MSFT until MSFT stops with this exFAT bullshit.

Re:2TB? exFAT? (2, Interesting)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381011)

Think Personal Life Recorders.

Stick 2TB card in a audio/video/photo/data/navigation/internet device - record EVERYTHING.
You could store about a years worth of video in more than a decent quality PLUS have a shitload of space left for everything else.

Attach a portable viewing device and make nearly every form of artistic entertainment delivery model obsolete.
Movies? In theaters? Why? There are going to be so many cams on the day 0 that SOME of them must be watchable.
Most people have no sense for quality anyway. And at ~1GB per movie you could have about 160 DAYS of non-stop video content on 1 card.
Get a couple of cards and you could have every movie you will ever see in the palm of your hand.
About a 100 cards will record your entire life anyway.

Music? Sure. Paying for it? Umm... again.. why? For a CD? You like the artist - send him a buck or two through his paypal account.
Every single live event in the world will soon be captured by someone, somewhere.

Books? Scannable by just flipping the pages.

Lectures? Seen one, seen em all.

Privacy? Very soon non-existent.

What we will start seeing a shitload of as a result?
Various digital watermark/thumbprint technology in EVERYTHING. And simple ways to bypass them.
No jewelery zone suggestions and attempts in enforcing.
Criminalization of EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE and resulting paranoia.
Accountability of everyone, everywhere for everything they ever do. Personally, I would love to see something like this mandatory for politicos.
Clash of need to spy on everyone, everywhere by governments with entertainment lobbies that would like to ban any and all digital recording.
A shitload of amateur porn.
A lot more problems with (better) identity theft.
Death of keys, passwords, and any locking system not featuring encrypted data on a chip not readable by a human.

End of the world as we know it.

FAT (4, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379047)

The only, ONLY good thing about FAT is that it is very well understood and supported everywhere. Why on earth would someone license a proprietary filesystem based on an awful filesystem when they don't need to?

Oh, and why on earth would a SD card manufacturer need to license a filesystem in the first place? It's not like it'll care what data is on there.

Re:FAT (5, Insightful)

Amouth (879122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379187)

because they ship them formatted because 90% of buyers are stupid.

it is cheaper for them to pay a fee to licence a file system - preformat the card than it is to ship them blank only to have the consumer call in saying it is broke + the costs associated with said consumer returning perfectly good products thinking they are broken.

users are idiots - if they ship them non formatted then people will think they are broken

- yes it's sad - yes its true

Re:FAT (2, Interesting)

More_Cowbell (957742) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379363)

- yes it's sad - yes its true

Well, it certainly is sad, and most likely true to some extent, but seriously I'm only 31 and I recall easily the days when all disks were shipped unformatted. I would like to think that ^most^ consumers could get the hang of formatting disks fairly quickly.

But then with ^most^ users using Windows, wouldn't they format it with FAT anyway?

Re:FAT (3, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379403)

because they ship them formatted because 90% of buyers are stupid.

Stupid != not wanting to waste mental bandwidth on how to prepare a digital medium for use.

The world is too amazing. and life is too short, for all intelligent person to waste time worrying about that crap.

Re:FAT (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379529)

No, I completely disagree. These days the computer is too ubiquitous to not "waste mental bandwidth" learning at least a bit about how to operate it. It's not like many jobs exist where people spend most of the time in front of one. To use a tired car analogy, it's like a mechanic not wasting mental bandwith on learning how to use a wrench because he has that important job of fixing cars to get on with.

Re:FAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26379605)

I'm unhappy about money going to Microsoft for a filesystem I will not be using. Windows users already have a license for Microsoft file systems, why should storage manufacturers (and by extension the consumer) have to pay for an additional license?

It's a taxation on mass ignorance and unavoidable even for the computer literate.

Re:FAT (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380437)

You're talking to an audience of people who would buy shirts with RTFM in bold caps on them.

While a part of it is a smug hubris, we do wear them to make a statement about people who "don't have the time" to read simple instructions or a guide. We especially hate it when people with that ideology then start to run their fucking mouths off about how much something sucks because they had to read a manual. We also hate it when by their din of whining cries we are forced into industry standards that treat us like lazy morons.

For that lazy consumer who is the reason we cannot have nice things I wear that shirt. Also, NO I WILL NOT FIX YOUR COMPUTER!!!

Re:FAT (3, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380469)

No. Stupid is returning a product that works because you're too stupid* to read the back of the package that says THIS MUST BE FORMATTED.

All digital cameras have a format option.

*And I meant stupid, not ignorant. Ignorant would be 'well I didn't know I had to do that, but now I do'. Stupid is not even checking.

Re:FAT (2, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379623)

You're right. When I buy something, I don't want to be able to plug it in and use it. I want to have to sit for $X $unit_of_time before being able to put my files on it!

What's this with computers coming pre-built and even pre-installed with $operating_system_name, anyways? I don't want to plug it in and have it work, I want to have to spend $X $unit_of_time before I'm able to use it!

... your point remains true that people would think it's broken, but I'm not sure that "smart people" wnat to have to format it, either.

Re:FAT (1)

RiffRafff (234408) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380965)

Let's see...I pop in a new card, the camera LCD screen says, "Memory card is not formatted. Format now? Y/n?"

Hmmm. Yep, it's a quandary. Makes you wonder how people ever managed to thread a 35mm leader onto a spool in ancient times.

Re:FAT (1)

tlinget (1447991) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380057)

You are right. Almost all are stupid. I bought a netbook a few weeks ago from a retailer. The sales person warned me that it does NOT have a drive (which I knew). She only told me because of all the people that return it because they were too stupid to know the difference between a netbook and a notebook.

Re:FAT (4, Insightful)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380165)

Stupid?

1. Pop the card in...
2. Windows tells you that it's unformatted...
3. You format it...
4. You're done!

Re:FAT (3, Insightful)

innocence18 (897646) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380503)

I don't want to put it in my machine first. I want to put it in my camera and start taking photos. Unless every single possible device I could put it in lets me format it, then shipping it unformatted is completely unacceptable.

Re:FAT (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380807)

So far as I know, many products that need additional instructions have labels or some other informative, yet prompt, insert that informs the user of actions that need to be taken before using the device.

Last time I bought a hard disk, they did the same thing.

I do agree with you, though. Most consumer applicances should be ready to use right out of the box, so it's really not a big deal that they are formatted FAT32 beforehand (not to mention that most cameras and appliances that make use of SD/CF/xD/MMC memory can only read FAT and FAT32).

Re:FAT (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380243)

Also, FAT32 is only an issue if you are dealing with single files larger than 4GB. Considering that most cards are still smaller than that there is no problem. If you are the type of person who is aware enough about file systems that you want something different, you are free to reformat it for no extra effort than you would have had to expend if it came unformatted. And if they are going to come formatted, FAT32 is a pretty good choice as a no-hassle work anywhere format.

Re:FAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380539)

Don't cameras even prompt you to format disks nowadays?

Re:FAT (1)

HiggsBison (678319) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379225)

So when does the bloody FAT patent expire, anyway?

Re:FAT (4, Informative)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379599)

Don't let the name fool you. This is less a "FAT" file system than FAT32 was to FAT16. It barely resembled anything FAT AT ALL. Long file names are different. Storage is different. The boot sector layout is different. File entries are different.

A snippet from wikipedia (since I can't find a link to the specification right now):

exFAT is an incompatible replacement for FAT file systems that was introduced with Windows Embedded CE 6.0. It is intended to be used on flash drives, where FAT is used today. Windows XP file system drivers will be offered by Microsoft shortly after the release of Windows CE 6.0, while Windows Vista Service Pack 1 added exFAT support to Windows Vista. exFAT introduces a free space bitmap allowing faster space allocation and faster deletes, support for files up to 2^64 bytes, larger cluster sizes (up to 32 MB in the first implementation), an extensible directory structure and name hashes for filenames for faster comparisons. It does not have short 8.3 filenames anymore. It does not appear to have security access control lists or file system journaling like NTFS, though device manufacturers can choose to implement simplified support for transactions (backup file allocation table used for the write operations, primary FAT for storing last known good allocation table).

They tried RieserFS (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26379075)

But it died on the table.

Re:They tried RieserFS (0)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379093)

Zing.

Re:They tried RieserFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26379323)

my pants are around my ankles and I'm ready to take it like a Reiser. Give me a good rogering, chap!

Re:They tried RieserFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26379893)

Ah - a file system that has a TOC. I don't think that they will need that for this instance.

The issue that they will see here is one of pins and whether SONY is going to get off of DVTape. It seems to me that they may have a problem with the suction off the device to get it to the computer for editing. This seems like a very different thing from SDHC.

Re:They tried RieserFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380177)

But it died in the woods.

There . . . fixed that for you.

I, for one... (3, Funny)

banffbug (1323109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379173)

cannot wait until everyone's walking around saying "pebibytes". Thou some people will call them pebeebytes and that will annoy me to no end.

Re:I, for one... (5, Funny)

banffbug (1323109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379207)

Please forget what i just said. I am wrong so so wrong.

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26379203)

Apparently you can design a standard with an arbitrarily high capacity compared to current ones and get front-paged on /.

I'm going to go "work on a 30 petabyte" storage medium standard, and it will be an open standard. Too bad there won't be an actual device that supports it.

Re:Wow! (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379441)

Keep going - your storage device may be needed for the game maps for Duke Nukem Forever.

Please help them! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26379257)

You can help animals to! Animal helper [22dog.co.cc]

Waste of time (5, Interesting)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379301)

Since everyone is getting rid of DRM anyway would it not be a good idea to drop the SD standard altogether and continue where MMC left off? a bit like the way Sony are getting rid of MagicGate

SD is just a RIAA-approved version of MMC with extra DRM features added. Maybe I'm just a bitter old sod but I find this continuation of the SD standard and it's DRM suspicious, perhaps they are waiting for a good time to re-introduce DRM on a massive scale and since every SD card ever made already supports it they will have no problem implementing it

I bet most the supposedly hardcore RIAA-hater nutjobs don't even realise SD has the built in DRM. They have been selling DRM-enabled cards for about 10 years now and just because the SD DRM hasn't seen any widespread use nobody batts an eyelid.

Re:Waste of time (1)

th0mas_g (1442333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379683)

I did not know that about SD... I actually owe you many thanks and have read up on it [wikipedia.org] now.

Re:Waste of time (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380739)

"I bet most the supposedly hardcore RIAA-hater nutjobs don't even realise SD has the built in DRM."

The term "Secure" in "Secure Digital" should have been a clue :-/

64GB and 300MBps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26379329)

throw away your hard drive and just use your SD card

More proof it's too late for copyright. (4, Interesting)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379349)

With the continual increase in the capacity of storage, exponentially decreasing cost per size, and ever increasing bandwidth to link it all together, I wonder if there is there any use worrying about piracy.

You could say piracy moved to the internet because floppy disks were useless and CD/DVD burning costly, even when it's now rather cheap. Generally piracy has been scaling with availability of bandwidth and storage. But is there a point where it gets so stupidly cheap and powerful that old world business models become completely untenable?

Re:More proof it's too late for copyright. (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379799)

that old world business models become completely untenable?

As long as you are just selling bandwidth and storage, your business model would seem to be primed for success.

Re:More proof it's too late for copyright. (2, Interesting)

moogsynth (1264404) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379839)

I've been pilfering the mp3 collections of everyone I know via meatspace for some time now, and have a pretty massive collection stored over several drives. I call it my INFINITY JUKEBOX! People come to me when they want music, rather than get it online. I've given complete mirror images of the drives to a couple of people already. When it gets to the stage where all this data can fit on to a single shitty card, hell, I'll hand them out in the street for free.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this.

Re:More proof it's too late for copyright. (1)

andy_t_roo (912592) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380277)

i believe the main problem associated with these ridiculously large storage capacities is that the exponential growth of storage capacity has been faster than the exponential growth of bandwidth.

1.5TB is the largest hard drive that isn't overly expensive, which (at the 1.9Mb/s bandwidth which is the median internet speed in America, is 76.6 days. Even in Japan (with a median of 61Mb/s) it takes 58 hours.

20 years ago with a 56k dialup and a 300MB hard drive it would only take 12 hours to copy it.

(hard drive capacity from http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/hist-c.html [pcguide.com] , http://www.speedmatters.org/document-library/sourcematerials/sm_report.pdf [speedmatters.org] , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem [wikipedia.org] and a few other places for an estimate of connection speed, i might be a little high for the historical estimate here)

I don't see this situation improving any time soon.

Re:More proof it's too late for copyright. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380759)

Though, the difficulty is generally not in transferring data but in storing it. If you can store infinite data then it is only a matter of time to transfer what you need of it. If you can't store anything then no amount of bandwidth is going to help.

Re:More proof it's too late for copyright. (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380841)

I wonder if there is there any use worrying about piracy.

If enough people decide to pirate instead of pay, then less stuff gets made. A big disk does not just magically have content appear on it.

But is there a point where it gets so stupidly cheap and powerful that old world business models become completely untenable?

Not really. Capacity is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not people pay for the content that fills it. If they don't, then they won't have a whole lot to fill their big disks with,

ZFS? (4, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379445)

Given that ZFS has been optimized for flash, why bother with FAT?

Re:ZFS? (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379779)

Presumably because you can't pull a ZFS-formatted SDXC card out of your digital camera, plug it into your Windows laptop's onboard reader, and pull the photos off onto your desktop.

Microsoft does not own ZFS (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379997)

No license stream if you pick a sensible filesystem, sorry. Instead you get Microsoft further extension of FAT. Ack.

Re:ZFS? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380001)

It doesn't matter what file system you put on these devices. The flash memory is managed by a little hardware controller.

Re:ZFS? (1)

thanasakis (225405) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380041)

ZFS has been optimized to take advantage of SSDs as ZFS intent log devices (whatever those are) in conjunction with regular drives. I think you may want to take a look at this [sun.com] for instance.

I haven't seen any specific optimizations for ZFS on standalone flash drives, but I would love to. Can you please provide any links?

Re:ZFS? (1)

KonoWatakushi (910213) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380393)

While ZFS was not designed for flash, it is basically a perfect fit, as it is a copy-on-write filesystem.

Re:ZFS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380315)

It's Sun's fault. They "opened" ZFS but crippled it at the same time by using a license that's incompatible with the majority of open-source projects or in this case pseudo-commercial use as part of the SD standard.

Sun is like all the other failed companies that shoot themselves in the foot time and again. They try to "open" something yet control it at the same time (not dissimilar to what they tried with Java). Trying to do this has put so many companies out of business that I can't count and it's why Sun is failing as a corporation.

Re:ZFS? (1)

nxtw (866177) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380673)

Given that ZFS has been optimized for flash, why bother with FAT?

Because ZFS is a filesystem with lots of features that are useless in systems in which SD cards are normally used. ZFS's goals are completely different than those of exFAT.

Re:ZFS? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380845)

> ZFS's goals are completely different than those of exFAT.

Right. ZFS provides no benefits to Microsoft at all.

TEp?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26379505)

convert it to GPT (nt) (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379669)

what? The nt == no text ;)

Crazy to use exFAT (2, Informative)

macemoneta (154740) | more than 5 years ago | (#26379993)

Since Linux, Mac and even most existing Windows users won't be able to use exFAT/FAT64 formatted media, they're not doing anyone any favors.

They could use NTFS as a more common file system, except for that whole journaling burning up the flash thing.

The most reasonable alternative is ext2, though I wouldn't want to spend a day fscking a 2TB SD card any more than I'd want to spend a day with chkdsk on an exFAT formatted one.

If flash sizes are going to continue to grow, they need to deal with journaling filesystems. Perhaps the easiest, most cost effective way to do this is by pre-partitioning the unit, with the bulk of the storage in one partition, but a second partition for a much smaller external journal aligned to more robust flash (e.g., 128MB with a 50M+ write life). Even with a 5 second journal update interval, that would give you about 8 years of 24 x 7 x 365 usage. Ext3 supports this configuration, not sure about NTFS or HFS+.

Re:Crazy to use exFAT (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380119)

Why not use HFSplus? It is open source, has existing open source implementations on several operating systems and isn't patent-encumbered or restricted.

It would be trivial to write a Windows filesystem driver for HFSplus which could be packaged with cameras and card readers, and HFSplus doesn't suffer from any of the filesystem and file size restrictions that FAT32 does.

On top of all this, we know it works well on flash devices, otherwise Apple wouldn't use it on Mac-formatted iPod Nanos.

Re:Crazy to use exFAT (1)

macemoneta (154740) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380185)

Why not use HFSplus?

The problem is the same; as a journaled filesystem, it would significantly shorten the life of the flash. A quick google search doesn't point to HFS+ being able to support an external journal either.

SDHC can already do 2TB (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380117)

Says Wikipedia "the SD 2.0 standard in SDHC uses a different memory addressing method (sector addressing vs byte addressing), thus theoretically reaching a maximum capacity of up to 2 TB (2048 GB). However the SD Card association has artificially defined the maximum limit of SDHC capacity to 32 GB"

Sounds like another way to extort people into using MS only standards. Hooray!

Re:SDHC can already do 2TB (1)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380229)

Yeah I was wondering about that. At what point did it make sense to introduce a standard with a range of 2-32 GB?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>