Hacking FAT32 vs NTFS vs WBFS

[midenok]

I have been reading many threads where people on occasion suggest to drop WBFS in spite of NTFS. I always were affected by this stupidity. Ok, I know that gamers are not very intelligent with filesystems, so I will try to shed light on the topic.

NTFS is journalled secure filesystem. It have many features like ACLs, transactions, file compression, journal, etc. And due to its features NTFS is slowest partition of all three. All the way, all these features are needless for the goal of ISO loading!

FAT32 is much simpler than NTFS and much faster. But anyway, handling of file allocation table and directory table, as much as fragmentation take some overhead. Also, it have file size limitation which is not good for our goal.

WBFS is the simplest one, so it is fastest filesystem of all three. It was specially designed for disk images loading, so it's most optimal one! I heard, that it had some bugs in fragmentation in early versions. But -- don't delete images, fragmentation anyway is not good for performance! I also heard, that WBFS is depreciated filesystem. That's nonsense! WBFS is still developed and supported! (I'm not the developer of it, just a loyal user)

So, to sum up all said: WBFS is evident and no-alternative choice for ISO import. That would not be very wise to mix this with another tasks, like said above (DIOS MIOS and GC games, emulated NAND, etc). Just make another filesystem (FAT32 would be enough) on this hard drive or use SD card (which is much better). I suppose, the size required for all these other tasks is many times lower than for ISOs, so it is stupidity to mix them in one partition!

P.S. Please, put my words in first post of this thread if you will find them useful. So, everyone could finally understand what is good for what.

P.P.S. It is OK to delete images from the end (i.e. those last added) -- it will not incur fragmentation. So, you can add a game, decide whether it is good and otherwise delete. But, personally, I prefer to not get into such complications. 1Tb drive will allow you to add everything. You will get tired (or retired), before you fill it up until maximum!

 

[JoostinOnline]

WBFS is the simplest one, so it is fastest filesystem of all three.

You want to back up that claim with some stats?

 

[midenok]

Do this work for yourself, if you don't understand it apriori. But better is to read about filesystem structure and understand that more complex structure will inflict more performance overhead. That's simple!

 

[Foxi4]

midenok, you're wrong on just about all the accounts.

Regardless of the file system used, the read speed difference will be negligable - it's more a matter of the hardware used. The difference between those systems is pretty simple - WBFS supports only images of discs, NTFS supports images in .wbfs format without splitting (accepts 4GB+ files) and media files and FAT32 accepts .wbfs images with splitting, allows booting of homebrew, as well as using Gamecube images and media files.

For all intents and purposes, FAT32 is the file system to use. WBFS is a relict of the past, and with automated splitting, NTFS became obsolete as well. Even I switched to FAT32, and I was a huge NTFS supporter due to its capacity of keeping images together rather than splitting them.

...but just so you know, WBFS is quite simple indeed - it's merely a header followed by disc information separated from the next header with a blank spot.

The comparison between FAT32 and NTFS is a little tricky. Either can be "faster" in different operations. The general rule is that FAT32 works at the speed of N / 2, where N is the number of files. NTFS on the other hand reads at the speed of Log N.

FAT32 has to "look through a folder" in search of a file regardless of whether the file exists or not. NTFS indexes files and even keeps small files within the MFT. In other words, for non-fragmented files that aren't all that numerous, FAT32 would be the go-to filesystem, wheras for loads of smaller files, it would be NTFS... but that is all theoretical. The truth is that this is all capped by the Read/Write speed of the Hard Drive - you never reach those peak potentials. As I said, the difference is negligable... which means...

...that you weight the pro's and con's instead, and FAT32 happens to have all the pro's on its side - it boots all images - Wii and Gamecube alike and it boots homebrew.

 

[the_randomizer]

WBFS-based hard drives are not detected in OSes, not to mention they've been know to be quite susceptible to file fragmentation. If your hard drive is formatted in WBFS and the files get corrupted, good luck. FAT32>WBFS.

 

[Foxi4]

WBFS-based hard drives are not detected in OSes, not to mention they've been know to be quite susceptible to file fragmentation. If your hard drive is formatted in WBFS and the files get corrupted, good luck. FAT32>WBFS.

This is an issue that springs from the way WBFS works - header, disc info, blank space, header, disc info, blank and so-on. Fragment this structure and you got yourself some trouble.

I second this motion - FAT32 > NTFS > WBFS, and nowadays there's no reason to pick NTFS anymore due to automatic splitting.

 

[midenok]

It is you who are wrong in all aspects. Read speed is not negligible. Not with Wii CPU processing power! I know that, because I used much all FAT16 and FAT32 and NTFS on Pentiums (with processing power similar to Wii) and was witness that NTFS Windows load time were about 2 times slower than after convert to FAT32. And many people converted back to FAT32 because of that. You don't know that, because you are young (supposedly) and have neither experience, nor sufficient knowledge.

As to FAT32 vs WBFS:

32k block (so-called cluster) size on FAT32 vs 16Mb (!!!) on WBFS --- this will do 512 times (!) less of references into allocation table!!! Ok, WBFS also should have allocation table (though personally I would ever preferred to live without it, who needs fragmentation for such kind of tasks anyway?). But, this table will be 512 times smaller than for FAT32. Moreover, FAT have 2 copies of this table and driver must read both of them to check consistency. So, in reality we should get reference difference even more: between 512 and 1024 times! Those are really huge numbers! That, in fact, should give you from 10% to 20% of load time difference.

It is in fact very simple and evident: it is better to use something that is specially designed for specific purpose. Don't use shaving blade for slicing bread and kitchen knife for shaving face! I'm stopping arguing here, because every inexperienced noob will try to invent his own arguments and this is not very effective talk.

(Original post is here)

 

[the_randomizer]

It is you who are wrong in all aspects. Read speed is not negligible. Not with Wii CPU processing power! I know that, because I used much all FAT16 and FAT32 and NTFS on Pentiums (with processing power similar to Wii) and was witness that NTFS Windows load time were about 2 times slower than after convert to FAT32. And many people converted back to FAT32 because of that. You don't know that, because you are young (supposedly) and have neither experience, nor sufficient knowledge.

As to FAT32 vs WBFS:

32k block (so-called cluster) size on FAT32 vs 16Mb (!!!) on WBFS --- this will do 512 times (!) less of references into allocation table!!! Ok, WBFS also should have allocation table (though personally I would ever preferred to live without it, who needs fragmentation for such kind of tasks anyway?). But, this table will be 512 times smaller than for FAT32. Moreover, FAT have 2 copies if this table and driver must read both of them to check consistency. So, in reality we should get reference difference even more: between 512 and 1024 times! Those are really huge numbers! That, in fact, should give you from 10% to 20% of load time difference.

It is in fact very simple and evident: it is better to use something that is specially designed for specific purpose. Don't use shaving blade for slicing bread and kitchen knife for shaving face! I'm stopping arguing here, because every inexperienced noob will try to invent his own arguments and this is not very effective talk.

*Sigh* Here we go again. Either stop making up random statistics or show us solid evidence regarding your claims. WBFS is deprecated and not supported much on GBATemp anymore. Want to backup your WBFS images to your computer? Not gonna happen. There are several computer science and other computer-related experts on here (including me) and Foxi4 is definitely an expert when it comes to file systems. WBFS doesn't work with emulators, USB loaders no longer support them (Dios Mios, a Gamecube backup loader).

There is no need to limit oneself to just one set of specific tools. Yes, WBFS is the file system the Wii uses, but guess what? Who f***ing cares about it? FAT32 are infinitely more stable, more compatible than WBFS and handle Wii ISO images just fine. Don't come around here calling everyone a noob.

 

[midenok]

If not noob, then very numbed old viking who shaves his face with an axe! (Or petrole-powered chain saw in case of NTFS)

I'm not arguing (though I've read your arguments carefully), because everything was said already and you're just keeping to skid inside your paradigms...

(Original post is here)

 

[Foxi4]

It is you who are wrong in all aspects. Read speed is not negligible. Not with Wii CPU processing power! I know that, because I used much all FAT16 and FAT32 and NTFS on Pentiums (with processing power similar to Wii) and was witness that NTFS Windows load time were about 2 times slower than after convert to FAT32. And many people converted back to FAT32 because of that. You don't know that, because you are young (supposedly) and have neither experience, nor sufficient knowledge.

As to FAT32 vs WBFS:

32k block (so-called cluster) size on FAT32 vs 16Mb (!!!) on WBFS --- this will do 512 times (!) less of references into allocation table!!! Ok, WBFS also should have allocation table (though personally I would ever preferred to live without it, who needs fragmentation for such kind of tasks anyway?). But, this table will be 512 times smaller than for FAT32. Moreover, FAT have 2 copies of this table and driver must read both of them to check consistency. So, in reality we should get reference difference even more: between 512 and 1024 times! Those are really huge numbers! That, in fact, should give you from 10% to 20% of load time difference.

It is in fact very simple and evident: it is better to use something that is specially designed for specific purpose. Don't use shaving blade for slicing bread and kitchen knife for shaving face! I'm stopping arguing here, because every inexperienced noob will try to invent his own arguments and this is not very effective talk.

(Original post is here)

...let's start with the fact that the old Pentium I had much less processing power than the Wii's Broadway CPU. If you are willing to back up your claims, I strongly suggest an experiment.

Why won't you check the Read/Write speeds on any average Wii backup manager? They show the exact Read speed when you're transferring files from the External HDD to your internal one. They show the Write speed when you do it the other way around. Record your findings and post them. Want to do it on the Wii? Sure thing!

Why won't you program a simple application that will write data to the hard drive over USB for a pre-set amount of time, then connect the drive back to the PC and check which filesystem allowed faster writing?

I'll tell you which one it will be - none of them to a considerable degree, because the Wii uses a 2.0 USB port and caps the maximum Read/Write speed to a standardized value.

Y'know, let's make it simple. Record yourself booting the exact same game from a FAT32 partition, a WBFS partition and a NTFS partition and check which loading times were significantly shorter.

Better yet, the most simple answer to your woes - go ahead and ask Waninkoko and kwiirk what happened to WBFS+.

If you are not willing to do either of those things, you're all talk and no do. The difference is negligable, if at all present and WBFS, as mentioned before, is prone to file fragmentation and failure.

EDIT: Just to summarise for future readers - FAT32 will hold your media, homebrew, Wii disc images and Gamecube disc images. WBFS will hold your Wii disc images.

All failure-related issues aside - take your pick.

 

[the_randomizer]

It is you who are wrong in all aspects. Read speed is not negligible. Not with Wii CPU processing power! I know that, because I used much all FAT16 and FAT32 and NTFS on Pentiums (with processing power similar to Wii) and was witness that NTFS Windows load time were about 2 times slower than after convert to FAT32. And many people converted back to FAT32 because of that. You don't know that, because you are young (supposedly) and have neither experience, nor sufficient knowledge.

As to FAT32 vs WBFS:

32k block (so-called cluster) size on FAT32 vs 16Mb (!!!) on WBFS --- this will do 512 times (!) less of references into allocation table!!! Ok, WBFS also should have allocation table (though personally I would ever preferred to live without it, who needs fragmentation for such kind of tasks anyway?). But, this table will be 512 times smaller than for FAT32. Moreover, FAT have 2 copies of this table and driver must read both of them to check consistency. So, in reality we should get reference difference even more: between 512 and 1024 times! Those are really huge numbers! That, in fact, should give you from 10% to 20% of load time difference.

It is in fact very simple and evident: it is better to use something that is specially designed for specific purpose. Don't use shaving blade for slicing bread and kitchen knife for shaving face! I'm stopping arguing here, because every inexperienced noob will try to invent his own arguments and this is not very effective talk.

(Original post is here)

...let's start with the fact that the old Pentium I had much less processing power than the Wii's Broadway CPU. If you are willing to back up your claims, I strongly suggest an experiment.

Why won't you check the Read/Write speeds on any average Wii backup manager? They show the exact Read speed when you're transferring files from the External HDD to your internal one. They show the Write speed when you do it the other way around. Record your findings and post them. Want to do it on the Wii? Sure thing!

Why won't you program a simple application that will write data to the hard drive over USB for a pre-set amount of time, then connect the drive back to the PC and check which filesystem allowed faster writing?

I'll tell you which one it will be - none of them to a considerable degree, because the Wii uses a 2.0 USB port and caps the maximum Read/Write speed to a standardized value.

Y'know, let's make it simple. Record yourself booting the exact same game from a FAT32 partition, a WBFS partition and a NTFS partition and check which loading times were significantly smaller.

Better yet, the most simple answer to your woes - go ahead and ask Waninkoko and kwiirk what happened to WBFS+.

If you are not willing to do either of those things, you're all talk and no do. The difference is negligable, if at all present and WBFS, as mentioned before, is prone to file fragmentation and failure.

EDIT: Just to summarise for future readers - FAT32 will hold your media, homebrew, Wii disc images and Gamecube disc images. WBFS will hold your Wii disc images.

All failure-related issues aside - take your pick.

^This, times 9000. Unequivocally agree with how you explained that.

 

[midenok]

Y'know, let's make it simple. Record yourself booting the exact same game from a FAT32 partition, a WBFS partition and a NTFS partition and check which loading times were significantly smaller.

I'm sure, you've already done it. So, why you asking to do same thing for other people. That's not good habit. Just show your results.

Better yet, the most simple answer to your woes - go ahead and ask Waninkoko and kwiirk what happened to WBFS+.

So what happened to that elegant and specially designed filesystem? Maybe better them to answer to all, not just to me?

The difference is negligable, if at all present and WBFS, as mentioned before, is prone to file fragmentation and failure.

EDIT: Just to summarise for future readers - FAT32 will hold your media, homebrew, Wii disc images and Gamecube disc images. WBFS will hold your Wii disc images.

Read this original post. All answers are there. I'm getting tired of people who keep ignoring useful arguments...

Moreover, WBFS (with all its tools) is more convenient than generic FAT32 tools. Where do you suppose to work with your files? In Far Manager? And what about stupid needless file splitting? Does any software do it transparently for you providing same convenient user interface or you just do it by hand? All this is just one big non-sense!!! Better support WBFS and it will be excellent filesystem (though I used it along 4 years and not even one failure happened, so it is excellent already).

P.S. Yes, you quote and quote and quote large sheets. I suspect, just for shoving good comments. I think that you are just nothing more than just enforcers of your own opinion.

 

[Foxi4]

...every single Wii backup manager used nowadays "transparently" transfers files and splits if necessary - shows how much you've been around. Examples?

http://www.wiibackupmanager.co.uk/

Click "Add" and done. One button.

As for your elegant and specifically designed filesystem, its creators dumped it due to the fact that FAT32 - a better alternative became available. WBFS is no more. Deal with it.

What you're doing is asking people to cut trees with a hatchet when there are readily-available chainsaws, using your analogy.

EDIT: This begins to be very tiring, so I'll just finish up saying how File Allocation Tables work, since you seem to know what they are, but not how they work. What they contain is the adress of the first cluster of a file/folder and its total size.

This means that the so-called "double-check" you keep on bringing up occurs once per file. Once. The system knows the adress of the first cluster and the total size - then it just goes on. Provided the disk is not fragmented, there is no slow-down whatsoever... so in conclusion, take good care of your drive and you'll be fine.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Moreover, WBFS (with all its tools) is more convenient than generic FAT32 tools. Where do you suppose to work with your files? In Far Manager? And what about stupid needless file splitting? Does any software do it transparently for you providing same convenient user interface or you just do it by hand? All this is just one big non-sense!!! Better support WBFS and it will be excellent filesystem (though I used it along 4 years and not even one failure happened, so it is excellent already).

Lol, you ARE a newbie, aren't you? WBFS has almost no support, and every up-to-date tool supports FAT32. Those that don't are all deprecated and/or unstable.

Did you really join just to post a bunch nonsense?

 

[Foxi4]

I have a weird feeling he's trolling with some "I found it on Wikipedia!" knowledge. He has a point that WBFS, which is practically RAW with some headers, is a *tad* quicker, unfortunately human perception is quite limited in that regard - nanoseconds are not our forte. As for NTFS and FAT, as I said, it depends greatly on the context and fragmentation, as well as the number of files. I'd love to see him perform a file search on a 1TB drive in FAT32 and in NTFS... for a file that doesn't exist. FAT32 will look for it like a moron due to a lack of indexing while NTFS will call him a moron for even looking for it.

A user has to weigh pro's and con's of the filesystem in question, and as of today, FAT is the most widely supported, the most compatible and the fastest one out there with the lowest failure rate.

 

[midenok]

As for your elegant and specifically designed filesystem, its creators dumped it due to the fact that FAT32 - a better alternative became available. WBFS is no more. Deal with it.

I don't believe it. That would be stupid idea. Let them say about it. Or maybe you know the link to their explanation? Dumping good ideas is every time non-sense. If they stopped to work on it, because interests changed, then some others will continue.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't believe it. That would be stupid idea. Let them say about it. Or maybe you know the link to their explanation? Dumping good ideas is every time non-sense. If they stopped to work on it, because interests changed, then some others will continue.

...they dumped it way, way back. The idea was picked up again to create WBFS plus, then dumped in 2009. Since then, there were no updates. At all. They moved on. Everybody moved on. Except you.

http://www.teknoconsolas.es/blog/waninkoko/goodbye-wii

He left the Wii scene to pursue other projects. That's his official blog. You don't get more official than that.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Now I'm sure he's just trolling. I'll report him.

Edit: Done

 

[midenok]

I don't believe it. That would be stupid idea. Let them say about it. Or maybe you know the link to their explanation? Dumping good ideas is every time non-sense. If they stopped to work on it, because interests changed, then some others will continue.

...they dumped it way, way back. The idea was picked up again to create WBFS plus, then dumped in 2009. Since then, there were no updates. At all. They moved on. Everybody moved on. Except you.

Yes, I know that this is just non-sense, because you can't know about 'everybody'. So, just good bye! WBFS works perfectly for its purpose, so no need to any further excessive development. I used it for 4 years, no failures!

 

[Foxi4]

I used it for a year and it practically mutilated my 250GB Seagate Barracuda. Go figure.

You have to understand that with no File Allocation Table and no indexing, the File System is unable to keep up with fragmented files, and they WILL become fragmented overtime as you remove and add new files - they'll never be the exact size, they'll never fit in the "holes" left by the other files and they will fragment, eventually failing. WBFS will not protect you from this and you cannot scan it due to the fact that no OS understands it.

It's dead, my friend, and you cannot revive it.