Hacking FAT VS WBFS

nash79

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
172
Trophies
0
XP
234
Country
United States
Hi guys, Ive been looking threads about USB CFG FAT abilities, and I was wondering what's are the pros n cons of using the FAT over WBFS.
Im considering the weekend as a time in which i can make the required arrangement.
Thanks guys
 
D

Deleted-171178

Guest
Fat is better for newbies as it requires no partitions and is relatively easy to set up, and allows you to use the drive for other things instead of just Wii games.
WBFS, on the other hand was made for Isos and has no file fragmentation meaning that there is less space wasted, but requires a seperate partition for it and it will show up as "unformatted" on windows.

Basically, for newbs use Fat and if you have some knowledge use WBFS.
 

nash79

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
172
Trophies
0
XP
234
Country
United States
I already have a 200GB WBFS partition (out of 250 GB drive) , I just wonder if getting it back to NFS would make it better. How about space utilization?
I can consider myself as an advance user. (dont develop my own hacks, but did apply all the hacks and tweeks)
tongue.gif
 
D

Deleted-171178

Guest
If you mean NTFS it doesnt support it.
If you want to use your HDD for roms as well, use FAT, but it has a 4gb file limit.
 

TinyRick

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
112
Trophies
1
XP
2,041
Country
United States
I have a WD Terabyte that has been half partitioned to WBFS and the other half Fat32... Since my SD card slot is broken (spring came out) it's really handy to have the option of using the FAT32 HD, but not having to use WBFS means that I can better manage data on it. Since 500 GB that was my WBFS drive I was unable to use that space for anything even when I had a few games on there. This way space will be utilized a little better in my opinion.
 

mousex

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
986
Trophies
0
XP
115
Country
United States
beegee7730 said:
and has no file fragmentation meaning that there is less space wasted
Because there is no fragmentation it does waste space. Fragmentation happens when small pices of big files get into small free spaces on the disc.
So, if you delete a 2GB game in the middle of your WBFS partition and you install a 3GB game the Installer will put it at the first free space with at least 3GB, this is not the 2GB space you made free before. So if you don't have other games under 2GB you will loose this space forever. So it does waste space. On a Fat partition the first 2GB would go into the 2GB free space and the last GB into the next free space.

This is all written on the asumption that the one who said that WBFS does not fragment the files is right.
 

Satangel

BEAST
Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
10,307
Trophies
1
Age
31
Location
Bruges, Belgium
XP
1,525
Country
Belgium
I'm gonna stay with WBFS, mainly for the space saving. If every Wii game I have is over 4GB, I would need over 200GB space right now.
I'm using just under 97GB at the moment, for my 47 Wii games.
 

tj_cool

Site dev
Supervisor
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
10,064
Trophies
2
Location
This planet
XP
3,099
Country
Belgium
Satangel said:
I'm gonna stay with WBFS, mainly for the space saving. If every Wii game I have is over 4GB, I would need over 200GB space right now.
I'm using just under 97GB at the moment, for my 47 Wii games.
Games on FAT are scrubbed, so its not really a big win of space

Unless you're talking about fragmentation
 

Satangel

BEAST
Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
10,307
Trophies
1
Age
31
Location
Bruges, Belgium
XP
1,525
Country
Belgium
tj_cool said:
Satangel said:
I'm gonna stay with WBFS, mainly for the space saving. If every Wii game I have is over 4GB, I would need over 200GB space right now.
I'm using just under 97GB at the moment, for my 47 Wii games.
Games on FAT are scrubbed, so its not really a big win of space

Unless you're talking about fragmentation

I'm talking about fragmentation and space winning.
I agree, it's not that big, but if I win a few GB's with it, fine by me.
 

WiiPower

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2008
Messages
8,165
Trophies
0
XP
345
Country
Gambia, The
Pro FAT:
no reformat needed
easier

Pro wbfs:
Supported by ALL cIOS not just the latest Hermes


I don't think there are any compatiblity or speed differences between both.
 

Jdbye

Always Remember 30/07/08
Suspended
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
1,070
Trophies
0
Age
33
Location
Norway
XP
288
Country
Norway
I wasn't even aware USB loaders had FAT compatibility now. WBFS annoyed me initially, but I think I prefer it over FAT now. The only annoyance is not being able to use the space for anything else.
 

Pakatus

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
779
Trophies
0
Age
45
Location
Portugal
XP
149
Country
Well...everyone "agrees" that having a game partitioned into 2/3 files is kinda weird.
I'm greatefull everything works on WBFS and since its supported by ALL loaders, i'm sticking with it.

But agree, for the newbies...FAT seems great.
 

damedus

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
220
Trophies
0
Age
44
Location
Puerto Rico
XP
278
Country
United States
mousex said:
beegee7730 said:
and has no file fragmentation meaning that there is less space wasted
Because there is no fragmentation it does waste space. Fragmentation happens when small pices of big files get into small free spaces on the disc.
So, if you delete a 2GB game in the middle of your WBFS partition and you install a 3GB game the Installer will put it at the first free space with at least 3GB, this is not the 2GB space you made free before. So if you don't have other games under 2GB you will loose this space forever. So it does waste space. On a Fat partition the first 2GB would go into the 2GB free space and the last GB into the next free space.

This is all written on the asumption that the one who said that WBFS does not fragment the files is right.
As fas as I understood the documentation, he means fragmentation in the form or cluster size. lets say a game takes half a cluster at its end so half a cluster is wasted and wont be used for anything not to mention the bits to direct data. In WBFS the file itself is palced as a whole and if you delete it the space it was taking goes back to the EMPTy if you wana call it that. WBFS 300G and put a 2.97g file you get a 2.97G slot and a Empty with the rest unused space, in fat depending on cluster sizes lets exagerate for a moment and go with gigs a 2.97g file takes 3g no mater where 1g here and 2g there then heads it so it can find itself. Its really not that much size diference as fat clusters arent that big, but WBFS dosent waste space it simply acts like a unpartitioned drive making a exact partition per game and deleteing it once you remove the game just like partition magic. WBFS file limit is 500 (512-12) but it can be swapped if you change alocation sizes(n-12) but only a few loaders suport that and even so its a big buggy.

As for the OP if you can manage WBFS just have a WBFS drive for isos and use a SD card for files, if you wont have many games then just partition the HD. if you want a easy way to put stuff not needing tools and dont care about some microspace being wasted then just go fat also remember fat has a 4g limit.
 

antimatter

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
73
Trophies
1
Age
39
Website
Visit site
XP
207
Country
Belgium
WiiPower said:
Pro FAT:
no reformat needed
easier

Pro wbfs:
Supported by ALL cIOS not just the latest Hermes


I don't think there are any compatiblity or speed differences between both.


isnt there are a filelimit of 4GB on FAT? There are quite a few Wii Isos that are bigger than that.... how does that work?
 

laurozza

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
348
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
97
Country
Italy
nash79 said:
In FAT, a 500MB (in WBFS) game would take 4GB right?No, same size when you convert an ISO into a .wbfs file.QUOTE(antimatter @ Nov 4 2009, 04:09 PM) isnt there are a filelimit of 4GB on FAT? There are quite a few Wii Isos that are bigger than that.... how does that work?
The isos are split in more .wbfs files
wink.gif
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    straferz @ straferz: Anybody know why this is happening to my ACWW town...