The fsckexfat utility first appeared in Mac OS X 10.6.3. I don't know how you can bypass the required automatic fsck in macos 10.14.4. It is fsckexfat -q that quickly checks to see if the volume was 'cleanly unmounted'. Perhaps that is being automatically run. I don't know if booting into safe mode would stop the automatic check. Windows' default NTFS is read-only on OS X, not read-and-write, and Windows computers can't even read Mac-formatted HFS+ drives. FAT32 works for both OSes, but has a 4GB size limit per file, so it. File system formats available in Disk Utility on Mac. Disk Utility on Mac supports several file system formats: Apple File System (APFS): The file system used by macOS 10.13 or later. Mac OS Extended: The file system used by macOS 10.12 or earlier. MS-DOS (FAT) and ExFAT: File systems that are compatible with Windows. Open Disk Utility for me. I can confirm that after I re-formated my external 2 TB HDD from exFAT with 2048K allocation unit size to exFAT with 1024K allocation unit size, the disk is now discoverable by Mac OS and I can work with it just fine. – retif Jul 14 '19 at 14:22. NTSF and exFAT will not work. The “Quick format” option should be checked. Click “OK” to confirm that you have read the warning. A few seconds later the process should be done, The USB flash drive is now ready for the software update procedure. Instructions for Mac OS.
Sep 10, 2020 • Filed to: Windows Computer Solutions • Proven solutions
Whenever you are trying to partition a hard drive, you are presented with the decision of choosing its file system. A file system is required to determine the procedure of retrieval and storage of data on the storage media. Each operating system has a different set of file systems that it supports. While in earlier days the choice of the file system was limited, there are multiple options available to you nowadays. Each file system available has its own strengths and benefits to offer you. While some file systems are ideal for one type of hard drive, others are best suited for another hard drive type. You can pick any of these file systems for your hard drive depending on its type.
APFS:APFS is the short form of Apple File System which has been recently released as a new feature for the latest operating system developed by Apple, macOS High Sierra. While this file system is primarily designed and optimized for flash drives and SSDs (Solid State Drives), it can be used for hybrid or mechanical drive without encountering much trouble.
Mac OS Extended: Mac OS Extended is the oldest file system that is compatible with all versions of Mac OS dating back to 1998. It is also referred to as HFS+ or HFS Plus and is the default file system that is used by older Mac OS versions for any storage device. The macOS High Sierra, however, only utilizes this file system for hybrid and mechanical drives.
ExFAT: AFPS and Mac OS Extended only work on Macs and can’t be used for other operating systems. ExFAT is the file system that is compatible with both Macs and Windows. It is thus a cross-platform file system that can be used for external drives either plugged to a Windows PC or a Mac with consummate ease.
So, you have three different file systems that you can use for partitioning your hard drives. The following are some tips on how you can choose the best file system for different types of storage media.
1. APFS: Best for Solid State and Flash Drives
APFS is the file system that is most appropriate for flash drives and SSDs. In fact, the macOS High Sierra uses it as the default file system for these two drives. This new file system by Apple has considerable advantages over other file systems particularly Mac OS Extended. For starters, it is much faster at copying and pasting folders than the older file systems and doesn’t take much time in determining the space occupied by a folder on the drive. Moreover, Apple has made extensive reliability improvements for this file system which ensures lesser instances of file corruption than in previous file systems.
While there are countless advantages of APFS, it does have its downsides as well. For instance, you need to have the latest Mac OS, macOS High Sierra, in order to write to this file system. Macs running on older versions of Mac OS won’t be able to utilize this file system. So, if you want the drive to be used on Macs which don’t have macOS High Sierra then you should not format them using APFS. Also, keep in mind that APFS isn’t compatible with Windows so drives formatted with this file system can’t be read by Windows PCs.
2. Mac OS Extended: Best for Mechanical Drives or Drives Used with Older macOS Versions
Before the release of APFS, Mac OS Extended was the file system used by all Macs as their default file system. Even macOS High Sierra utilizes this file system as default for mechanical and hybrid drives. The reason for this is that APFS is not optimized for those drives and doesn’t offer the same benefits as it does for flash and solid-state drives. Even when formatting external drives, it is a better option to go for Mac OS Extended than APFS. Another advantage that this file system has over APFS is its compatibility with Time Machine. Thus, Mac OS Extended is the most suitable file system to be used for formatting backup drives.
So, if you have a drive that is to be used with Macs running on earlier versions of Mac OS than macOS High Sierra, then you should only format it using Mac OS Extended. Moreover, all mechanical drives should be formatted using Mac OS Extended too.
3. ExFAT: Best for External Drives Shared with Windows Computers
If you make use of both Windows PCs and Macs and have an external drive which is to be plugged to both, then you can neither use Mac OS Extended or APFS. In such circumstances, you need a cross-platform solution that can be read and written to by both Windows and Mac OS. ExFAT is the best option available to you in this regard. This file system was developed by Microsoft in the year 2006. It allows you to format external drives that need to be used by both Macs and Windows PCs. This file system doesn’t have partition and file size limitations like FAT32, which is the older file system that offers cross-platform compatibility.
While ExFAT is definitely the best cross-platform file system, it does have its faults. For instance, it is vulnerable to file corruption and doesn’t support features like metadata offered by APFS and Mac OS Extended.
File systems are important for making full use of a storage device and determine how data is to be retrieved and saved on them. When you are partitioning or formatting drives, you need to choose a file system of your choice. Usually, there are three options available which include APFS, Mac OS Extended, and ExFAT. Each of these file systems has its own strengths and weaknesses and are different from each other. You need to decide which one is more suitable for your needs and then use it to format your drive.
When software and operating system giant Microsoft announced its support for inclusion of the exFAT filesystem directly into the Linux kernel back in August, it didn't get a ton of press coverage. But filesystem vendor Paragon Software clearly noticed this month's merge of the Microsoft-approved, largely Samsung-authored version of exFAT into the VFS for-next repository, which will in turn merge into Linux 5.7—and Paragon doesn't seem happy about it.
Yesterday, Paragon issued a press release about European gateway-modem vendor Sagemcom adopting its version of exFAT into an upcoming series of Linux-based routers. Unfortunately, it chose to preface the announcement with a stream of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) that wouldn't have looked out of place on Steve Ballmer's letterhead in the 1990s.
Paragon described its arguments against open source software—which appeared directly in my inbox—as an 'article (available for publication in any form) explaining why the open source model didn't work in 3 cases.'
All three of Paragon's offered cases were curious examples, at best.
Let’s first look into some cases where filesystems similar to exFAT were supported in Unix derivatives and how that worked from an open source perspective.
The most sound case is Android, which creates a native Linux ext4FS container to run apps from FAT formatted flash cards (3). This shows the inability (or unwillingness based on the realistic estimation of a needed effort) of software giant Google to make its own implementation of a much simpler FAT in the Android Kernel.
Hidden object games to buy. At GameHouse, you'll easily find a Hidden Object game worthy of your time. These easy to play and entertaining games are an all-time favorite among players everywhere. From classic hidden object fun with games like Pure Hidden and the Vacation Adventures series to more adventurous games like Ghosts of the Past - Bones of Meadows Town and New. Download and play Hidden Object Mac games for free. In the best Hidden Object games for Mac you puzzle and explore to solve great mysteries and unravel incredible stories. Download and play free Hidden Object Games for Mac. Hunt for clues and solve puzzles as you play our huge selection of Hidden Object Games!
The footnote leads the reader to a lengthy XDA-developers article that explains the long history of SD card filesystems in the Android operating system. An extremely brief summation: originally, Android used the largely compatible VFAT implementation of the Windows FAT32 filesystem. This caused several issues—including security problems due to a lack of multi-user security metadata.
These problems led Google to replace VFAT with a largely Samsung-developed FUSE (Filesystem in Userspace) implementation of exFAT. This solved the security issues twice over—not only were ACLs now supported, the FUSE filesystem could even be mounted for individual users. Unfortunately, this led to performance issues—as convenient as FUSE might be, userspace filesystems don't perform as well as in-kernel filesystems.
Still with us so far? Great. The final step in this particular story is Google replacing exFAT-FUSE with SDCardFS, another Samsung-developed project that—confusingly—isn't really a filesystem at all. Instead, it's an in-kernel wrapper that passes API calls to a lower-level filesystem. SDCardFS replaces FUSE, not the filesystem, and thereby allows emulated filesystems to run in kernel space.
If you're wondering where proprietary software comes in to save the day, the answer is simple: it doesn't. This is a story of the largest smartphone operating system in the world consistently and successfully using open source software, improving performance and security along the way.
What's not yet clear is whether Google specifically will use the new in-kernel exFAT landing in 5.7 in Android or will continue to use Samsung's SDCardFS filesystem wrapper. SDCardFS solved Android's auxiliary-storage performance problems, and it may provide additional security benefits that simply using an in-kernel exFAT would not.
The other case is Mac OS—another Unix derivative that still does not have commercial support for NTFS-write mode—it only supports NTFS in a read-only mode. That appears strange given the existence of NTFS-3G for Linux. One can activate write support—but there’s no guarantee that NTFS volumes won’t be corrupted during write operations.
There are several problems with using MacOS' iffy NTFS support as a case against open source software. The first is that NTFS support doesn't seem to be a real priority for Apple in the first place. MacOS Classic had no NTFS support at all. The NTFS support present after Mac OS X 10.3 'Panther' was, effectively, a freebie—it was already there in the FreeBSD-derived VFS (Virtual File System) and network stack.
Another problem with this comparison is that NTFS is a full-featured, fully modern filesystem with no missing parts. By contrast, exFAT—the filesystem whose Linux kernel implementation Paragon is throwing FUD at—is an extremely bare-bones, lightweight filesystem designed for use in embedded devices.
The final nail in this particular coffin is that the open source NTFS implementation used by MacOS isn't Microsoft-sanctioned. It's a clean-room reverse-engineered workaround of a proprietary filesystem. Worse, it's an implementation made at a time when Microsoft actively wanted to close the open source community out—and it's not even the modern version.
As Paragon notes, NTFS-3G is the modern open source implementation of NTFS. NTFS-3G, which is dual-licensed proprietary/GPL, does not suffer from potential write-corruption issues—and it's available on MacOS, as well as on Linux.
Mac users who don't need the highest performance can install a FUSE implementation of NTFS-3G for free using Homebrew, while those desiring native or near-native performance can purchase a lifetime license directly from Tuxera. Each $15 license includes perpetual free upgrades and installation on up to three personal computers.
It's probably worth noting that Paragon—in addition to selling a proprietary implementation of exFAT—sells a proprietary implementation of NTFS for the Mac.
An additional example, away from filesystems, is an open source SMB protocol implementation. Mac OS, as well as the majority of printer manufacturers, do not rely on an open-source solution, as there are several commercial implementations of SMB as soon as a commercial level of support is required.
It's unclear why Paragon believed this to be a good argument against open source implementations of a file system. SMB (Server Message Block) isn't a filesystem at all; it's a network communication protocol introduced with Microsoft Windows.
It's certainly true that many proprietary implementations of SMB exist—including one in direct partnership with Microsoft, made by Paragon rival and NTFS-3G vendor Tuxera. But this is another very odd flex to try to make against open source filesystem implementations.
Leaving aside the question of what SMB has to do with exFAT, we should note the extensive commercial use of Samba, the original gangster of open source SMB networking. In particular, Synology uses Samba for its NAS (Network Attached Storage) servers, as do Netgear and QNAP. Samba.org itself also lists high-profile commercial vendors including but not limited to American Megatrends, Hewlett-Packard, Veritas, and VMWare.
We congratulate Paragon on closing their timely exFAT deal with Sagemcom. Although there's good reason to believe that the Samsung-derived and Microsoft-approved exFAT implementation in Linux 5.7 will be secure, stable, and highly performant, it's not here yet—and it isn't even in the next upcoming Linux kernel, 5.6, which we expect to hit general availability in late April or early May.
In the meantime, a company with a business need to finalize design decisions—like Sagemcom—probably is making the right decision to use a proprietary exFAT implementation, with commercial support. The license costs are probably a small percentage of what the company stands to earn in gross router sales, and Paragon's implementation is a known value.
However, we suspect the exFAT landscape will tilt significantly once Samsung's Microsoft-blessed version hits the mainstream Linux kernel. Hopefully, Paragon will evolve a more modern open source strategy now, while it still has time.