50 GB file - the ZIM file form wikipedia.

I used UDF 2.01 for compatibility.
I used a 64GB USB 3 drive, Corsair Voyager Vega, on my Late 2013 15" MacBook Pro.
The transfer took just over and under 50 minutes. I did the UDF test while I was at work, and doing all sorts of other work related crap, so the transfer was probably slower than it should have been. I will run the test again.
After each test I zeroed out the first meg or two of the drive (dd if=/dev/zero...) and reformatted using newfs_udf and newfs_exfat respectively.
UDF was 512B allocation unit (cluster) size while the exFAT was 13,1072B. This was a mistake, I wanted both to be 512. The larger cluster size on exFAT is probably responsible for the lower time.

MD5 (Downloads/wikipedia_en_all_2015-05.zim) = 2dabe5cf628a54f6edc97ac77b7c7c52
50,900,153,262B Jun 17 21:02 wikipedia_en_all_2015-05.zim

UDF:
$ time cp wikipedia_en_all_2015-05.zim /Volumes/Corsair64GB/
wikipedia_en_all_2015-05.zim -> /Volumes/Corsair64GB/wikipedia_en_all_2015-05.zim
real 53m11.412s
user 0m0.084s
sys 0m46.543s
50,900MB/3,191s = 15.9MB/s

exFAT:
$ time cp wikipedia_en_all_2015-05.zim /Volumes/Corsair64GB/
real 47m38.782s
user 0m0.129s
sys 0m51.018s
50,900MB/2,858s = 17.80MB/s

So, it would seem UDF 2.01 is a more viable option than exFAT.
I'm going to run the test again, with exFAT's cluster size at 512B.

Here's all the info when the drive was formatted to both FS's.
$ diskutil info /Volumes/Corsair64GB/

Device Identifier: disk2
Device Node: /dev/disk2
Part of Whole: disk2
Device / Media Name: Corsair Voyager VEGA Media
Volume Name: Corsair64GB
Mounted: Yes
Mount Point: /Volumes/Corsair64GB
File System Personality: UDF
Type (Bundle): udf
Name (User Visible): Universal Disk Format (UDF)
Content (IOContent): None
OS Can Be Installed: No
Media Type: Generic
Protocol: USB
SMART Status: Not Supported
Total Size: 62.0 GB (61951967232 Bytes) (exactly 120999936 512-Byte-Units)
Volume Free Space: 10.9 GB (10917155840 Bytes) (exactly 21322570 512-Byte-Units)
Device Block Size: 512 Bytes
Allocation Block Size: 512 Bytes
Read-Only Media: No
Read-Only Volume: No
Ejectable: Yes
Whole: Yes
Internal: No
OS 9 Drivers: No
Low Level Format: Not supported

exFAT

$ diskutil info /Volumes/Corsair64GB/
Device Identifier: disk2
Device Node: /dev/disk2
Part of Whole: disk2
Device / Media Name: Corsair Voyager VEGA Media
Volume Name: Corsair64GB
Mounted: Yes
Mount Point: /Volumes/Corsair64GB
File System Personality: ExFAT
Type (Bundle): exfat
Name (User Visible): ExFAT
Content (IOContent): None
OS Can Be Installed: No
Media Type: Generic
Protocol: USB
SMART Status: Not Supported
Volume UUID: 0FDE1168-F150-3E27-9CFD-CDFDB82ACE12
Total Size: 62.0 GB (61951967232 Bytes) (exactly 120999936 512-Byte-Units)
Volume Free Space: 61.9 GB (61940170752 Bytes) (exactly 120976896 512-Byte-Units)
Device Block Size: 512 Bytes
Allocation Block Size: 131072 Bytes
Read-Only Media: No
Read-Only Volume: No
Ejectable: Yes
Whole: Yes
Internal: No
OS 9 Drivers: No
Low Level Format: Not supported

--
x2w7ipoprfkuvswz
BM-2cTJKPDb8pmp6UKJLrZdhB7SojBJrBzznT

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 20:33:34 -0500
Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:

> 50 GB file - the ZIM file form wikipedia.
>
> I used UDF 2.01 for compatibility.
> I used a 64GB USB 3 drive, Corsair Voyager Vega, on my Late 2013 15"
> MacBook Pro. The transfer took just over and under 50 minutes. I did
> the UDF test while I was at work, and doing all sorts of other work
> related crap, so the transfer was probably slower than it should have
> been. I will run the test again. After each test I zeroed out the
> first meg or two of the drive (dd if=/dev/zero...) and reformatted
> using newfs_udf and newfs_exfat respectively. UDF was 512B allocation
> unit (cluster) size while the exFAT was 13,1072B. This was a
> mistake, I wanted both to be 512. The larger cluster size on exFAT
> is probably responsible for the lower time.
>
> MD5 (Downloads/wikipedia_en_all_2015-05.zim) =
> 2dabe5cf628a54f6edc97ac77b7c7c52 50,900,153,262B Jun 17 21:02
> wikipedia_en_all_2015-05.zim
>
> UDF:
> $ time cp wikipedia_en_all_2015-05.zim /Volumes/Corsair64GB/
> wikipedia_en_all_2015-05.zim
> -> /Volumes/Corsair64GB/wikipedia_en_all_2015-05.zim real
> 53m11.412s user 0m0.084s
> sys 0m46.543s
> 50,900MB/3,191s = 15.9MB/s
>
> exFAT:
> $ time cp wikipedia_en_all_2015-05.zim /Volumes/Corsair64GB/
> real 47m38.782s
> user 0m0.129s
> sys 0m51.018s
> 50,900MB/2,858s = 17.80MB/s
>
>
> So, it would seem UDF 2.01 is a more viable option than exFAT.
> I'm going to run the test again, with exFAT's cluster size at 512B.
>
>
> Here's all the info when the drive was formatted to both FS's.
> $ diskutil info /Volumes/Corsair64GB/
>
> Device Identifier: disk2
> Device Node: /dev/disk2
> Part of Whole: disk2
> Device / Media Name: Corsair Voyager VEGA Media
> Volume Name: Corsair64GB
> Mounted: Yes
> Mount Point: /Volumes/Corsair64GB
> File System Personality: UDF
> Type (Bundle): udf
> Name (User Visible): Universal Disk Format (UDF)
> Content (IOContent): None
> OS Can Be Installed: No
> Media Type: Generic
> Protocol: USB
> SMART Status: Not Supported
> Total Size: 62.0 GB (61951967232 Bytes) (exactly
> 120999936 512-Byte-Units) Volume Free Space: 10.9 GB
> (10917155840 Bytes) (exactly 21322570 512-Byte-Units) Device Block
> Size: 512 Bytes Allocation Block Size: 512 Bytes
> Read-Only Media: No
> Read-Only Volume: No
> Ejectable: Yes
> Whole: Yes
> Internal: No
> OS 9 Drivers: No
> Low Level Format: Not supported
>
> exFAT
>
> $ diskutil info /Volumes/Corsair64GB/
> Device Identifier: disk2
> Device Node: /dev/disk2
> Part of Whole: disk2
> Device / Media Name: Corsair Voyager VEGA Media
> Volume Name: Corsair64GB
> Mounted: Yes
> Mount Point: /Volumes/Corsair64GB
> File System Personality: ExFAT
> Type (Bundle): exfat
> Name (User Visible): ExFAT
> Content (IOContent): None
> OS Can Be Installed: No
> Media Type: Generic
> Protocol: USB
> SMART Status: Not Supported
> Volume UUID: 0FDE1168-F150-3E27-9CFD-CDFDB82ACE12
> Total Size: 62.0 GB (61951967232 Bytes) (exactly
> 120999936 512-Byte-Units) Volume Free Space: 61.9 GB
> (61940170752 Bytes) (exactly 120976896 512-Byte-Units) Device Block
> Size: 512 Bytes Allocation Block Size: 131072 Bytes
> Read-Only Media: No
> Read-Only Volume: No
> Ejectable: Yes
> Whole: Yes
> Internal: No
> OS 9 Drivers: No
> Low Level Format: Not supported
>
>

49 minutes on exFAT with the 512B cluster size.

--
x2w7ipoprfkuvswz
BM-2cTJKPDb8pmp6UKJLrZdhB7SojBJrBzznT

On 2015-11-20, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> 50 GB file - the ZIM file form wikipedia.

....a pointless exercise given the typical level of clue for Mac users.

If you can't use it as is on MacOS, then it's a paperweight.

[deletia]

On 11/20/15, 1:13 PM, in article slrnn4uvng.ntj.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> If you can't use it as is on MacOS, then it's a paperweight.

Um, what?

--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:13:36 -0600
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2015-11-20, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> > 50 GB file - the ZIM file form wikipedia.
>
> ...a pointless exercise given the typical level of clue for Mac users.
>
> If you can't use it as is on MacOS, then it's a paperweight.
>
> [deletia]

Was that supposed to be English? Here's a little hint, have a point
when you make a statement.

--
x2w7ipoprfkuvswz
BM-2cTJKPDb8pmp6UKJLrZdhB7SojBJrBzznT

On 2015-11-20, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:13:36 -0600
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-20, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
>> > 50 GB file - the ZIM file form wikipedia.
>>
>> ...a pointless exercise given the typical level of clue for Mac users.
>>
>> If you can't use it as is on MacOS, then it's a paperweight.
>>
>> [deletia]
>
> Was that supposed to be English? Here's a little hint, have a point
> when you make a statement.

The comparison assumes that the typical Mac user is going to reformat
something or even be aware of what filesystem their using (or care).

...versus just ripping it out of the package and start using it like
I just did with an exFAT formated 200G microSD card.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:07:43 -0600
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2015-11-20, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:13:36 -0600
> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-11-20, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> >> > 50 GB file - the ZIM file form wikipedia.
> >>
> >> ...a pointless exercise given the typical level of clue for Mac
> >> users.
> >>
> >> If you can't use it as is on MacOS, then it's a paperweight.
> >>
> >> [deletia]
> >
> > Was that supposed to be English? Here's a little hint, have a point
> > when you make a statement.
>
> The comparison assumes that the typical Mac user is going to
> reformat something or even be aware of what filesystem their using
> (or care).
>
> ...versus just ripping it out of the package and start using it
> like I just did with an exFAT formated 200G microSD card.

You can say that about most users no matter what OS they're using.

I was trying to see is UDF was a viable alternative to exFAT.
Unfortunately I'm having some issues on the Windows 7 side. Surprise?

http://postimg.org/image/bz2rhsi1h/

This happens on all sorts of files, formatted to UDF version 2.01 or
2.60.

--
x2w7ipoprfkuvswz
BM-2cTJKPDb8pmp6UKJLrZdhB7SojBJrBzznT

On 2015-11-23, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:07:43 -0600
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-20, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:13:36 -0600
>> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2015-11-20, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
>> >> > 50 GB file - the ZIM file form wikipedia.
>> >>
>> >> ...a pointless exercise given the typical level of clue for Mac
>> >> users.
>> >>
>> >> If you can't use it as is on MacOS, then it's a paperweight.
>> >>
>> >> [deletia]
>> >
>> > Was that supposed to be English? Here's a little hint, have a point
>> > when you make a statement.
>>
>> The comparison assumes that the typical Mac user is going to
>> reformat something or even be aware of what filesystem their using
>> (or care).
>>
>> ...versus just ripping it out of the package and start using it
>> like I just did with an exFAT formated 200G microSD card.
>
> You can say that about most users no matter what OS they're using.

Like I said before...

>> >> ...a pointless exercise given the typical level of clue for Mac
>> >> users.

That's not even getting into the obvious other technical limitations
you're going to run niot with this kind of stuff.

>
> I was trying to see is UDF was a viable alternative to exFAT.
> Unfortunately I'm having some issues on the Windows 7 side. Surprise?

Windows will also have problems if you partition an sdcard or use
some Linux format on it. This is all kind of obvious really. If you are
using a product to "be compatible" then perhaps you shouldn't fuck around
with it. You might make it so that it's not "compatible" anymore.

It can be dangerous when you take the training wheels off.

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 09:39:45 -0600
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2015-11-23, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:07:43 -0600
> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-11-20, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:13:36 -0600
> >> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2015-11-20, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > 50 GB file - the ZIM file form wikipedia.
> >> >>
> >> >> ...a pointless exercise given the typical level of clue for Mac
> >> >> users.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you can't use it as is on MacOS, then it's a paperweight.
> >> >>
> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >
> >> > Was that supposed to be English? Here's a little hint, have a
> >> > point when you make a statement.
> >>
> >> The comparison assumes that the typical Mac user is going to
> >> reformat something or even be aware of what filesystem their using
> >> (or care).
> >>
> >> ...versus just ripping it out of the package and start using it
> >> like I just did with an exFAT formated 200G microSD card.
> >
> > You can say that about most users no matter what OS they're using.
>
> Like I said before...
>
>
> Windows will also have problems if you partition an sdcard or use
> some Linux format on it. This is all kind of obvious really. If you
> are using a product to "be compatible" then perhaps you shouldn't
> fuck around with it. You might make it so that it's not "compatible"
> anymore.

Yes, thats why using ext4 is clearly not an option.
exFAT/FAT64 is working perfectly. that's that we'll stick with.

>
> It can be dangerous when you take the training wheels off.

Was that supposed to have a point?

Ignorance is bliss.

--
x2w7ipoprfkuvswz
BM-2cTJKPDb8pmp6UKJLrZdhB7SojBJrBzznT

On 2015-11-30, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 09:39:45 -0600
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-23, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:07:43 -0600
>> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2015-11-20, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:13:36 -0600
>> >> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 2015-11-20, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
>> >> >> > 50 GB file - the ZIM file form wikipedia.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ...a pointless exercise given the typical level of clue for Mac
>> >> >> users.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you can't use it as is on MacOS, then it's a paperweight.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [deletia]
>> >> >
>> >> > Was that supposed to be English? Here's a little hint, have a
>> >> > point when you make a statement.
>> >>
>> >> The comparison assumes that the typical Mac user is going to
>> >> reformat something or even be aware of what filesystem their using
>> >> (or care).
>> >>
>> >> ...versus just ripping it out of the package and start using it
>> >> like I just did with an exFAT formated 200G microSD card.
>> >
>> > You can say that about most users no matter what OS they're using.
>>
>> Like I said before...
>>
>>
>> Windows will also have problems if you partition an sdcard or use
>> some Linux format on it. This is all kind of obvious really. If you
>> are using a product to "be compatible" then perhaps you shouldn't
>> fuck around with it. You might make it so that it's not "compatible"
>> anymore.
>
> Yes, thats why using ext4 is clearly not an option.
> exFAT/FAT64 is working perfectly. that's that we'll stick with.
>
>>
>> It can be dangerous when you take the training wheels off.
>
> Was that supposed to have a point?
>
> Ignorance is bliss.

That should be your motto.