Better formatting of large CF cards?

rutt · May 2, 2007

I have some vague memory that one can get better performance from large CF cards if one formats them on a computer in some non-default sort of way. Is this actually true? If so, what are the parameters and what exactly makes it better (please answer in full nerdly detail.)

Thanks.

Seymore · May 2, 2007

From what I've read and experienced, I only do a "hard" (total) format on the computer every 5-10 DL's or when I'm having problems with the card. Other than that I do a "quick" format in cam. And if I have to do a "hard" puter format on the card (FAT32) I always follow that with a cam format to assure that the format is what the cam can deal with.

I've never hear about anything like you're speaking of, unless it pertains to what I stated above. So I'll be watching this thread...

HTH...

pathfinder · May 2, 2007

I ALWAYS format my CF cards in the camera I intend to use them. The wrong format can make them un-useable in some cameras.

I have not heared or seen anything that suggests the formatting of the card affects the read or write speed in a camera. I think that is more of a factor of the camera and its native buffer size and processor speed, but that is just a wild eyed guess, John.

Are you suggesting FAT32 versus FAT16 or something else? Theoretically they could be partitioned as two or three smaller drives, I suppose, but to what purpose.

Is the write speed that critical for your shooting? I have never really thought that the card has much effect on performance in a given camera. I always thought the camera was the bigger factor, but then I rarely shoot large frame sequences and fill up a buffer either.

wxwax · May 2, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

I have never really thought that the card has much effect on performance in a given camera. I always thought the camera was the bigger factor, but then I rarely shoot large frame sequences and fill up a buffer either.

We had a brief discussion in another thread about how slowly 12GB and 16GB cards fill, after they pass the half-way mark or so.

Someone explained it was because before filing the new image, the software had to scan the FAT list of images already on the drive, and the more images that were filed the longer the list and hence, the longer it took to write to the card (or something, it's beyond my ken.)

I can report from personal experience that my large cards take longer to write to, as they fill up. It's a pronounced difference.

pathfinder · May 2, 2007

I have not played with the larger cards, my largest is 8 Gb.

So have you tried partitioning on of those 16 Gb drives as two 8 Gb drives? Will the camera even recgonize both partitions?

wxwax · May 2, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

I have not played with the larger cards, my largest is 8 Gb.

So have you tried partitioning on of those 16 Gb drives as two 8 Gb drives? Will the camera even recgonize both partitions?

Oh heck no I haven't tried that.

Me trying that sort of tomfoolery is a recipe for disaster!

I wonder how the camera would handle it?

pathfinder · May 2, 2007

Just to be clear - in case it was not completely apparent. I was kiddding -

I do not want anyone to really try partitioning one of their CF cards as I suspect bad things might happen. Like it might sieze up and crash and burn.

wxwax · May 2, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

Just to be clear - in case it was not completely apparent. I was kiddding -

I do not want anyone to really try partitioning one of their CF cards as I suspect bad things might happen. Like it might sieze up and crash and burn.

Geek humor?

ian408 · May 3, 2007

What windows allows you to do (or any other OS) vs. what the camera
allows you to do are two different things

There was a discussion some time back about formatting the CF with a
cluster size of 32K. This seems to work pretty well for large cards. I
forget the details but seem to recall that as long as you formatted the
card on the computer, 32K cluster sizes worked. But format in camera
and it's back to 4K cluster sizes.

rutt · May 3, 2007

That cluster size thing is what I was trying to remember. I don't know why it's a good thing. Does anyone?

And what was the other thing?

ian408 wrote:

What windows allows you to do (or any other OS) vs. what the camera
allows you to do are two different things

There was a discussion some time back about formatting the CF with a
cluster size of 32K. This seems to work pretty well for large cards. I
forget the details but seem to recall that as long as you formatted the
card on the computer, 32K cluster sizes worked. But format in camera
and it's back to 4K cluster sizes.

ivar · May 3, 2007

rutt wrote:

That cluster size thing is what I was trying to remember. I don't know why it's a good thing. Does anyone?

And what was the other thing?

Not sure, i usually figure that the camera does whatever it does for a reason, and I shouldn't start messing around with it...

The speed and/or size gain you may or may not get from doing it different will be so minimal anyway, it's not even noticeable probably.

pathfinder · May 3, 2007

If memory serves - the cluster size is the smallest addressable area in a partition.

SO any data file will be at least 32k rather than 4K. This means 2k of data require 32k of space, but since in a camera all files are about the same size, it probably won't be a problem.

The cluster size has to with how the drive is formatted. Windows went from 4k to 32 K with the advent of larger hard drives ( > 132 Gb I think ) a few years ago.

What do I know? - I left Windows a few years ago too.:D

ian408 · May 4, 2007

Well, I guess the real answer about cluster size, like most things in the
computer world, is "it depends". Depends on the amount of data you are
writing. PF is correct. If you change the cluster size to 8k, a 1 byte file
will take 8k to store. It's also true that the larger the cluster size, the
less efficient storage will be. On the other hand, if you are writing files
that are 32k or multiples of 32k, you should gain some efficiency in
writes with a larger cluster size.

In the windows world, you could put the CF card in the system and run
chkdisk on it. "allocation" is the current cluster size.

And as has been mentioned, unless you are going to format the card
using Windows, the camera will format it with a 4k cluster size (which,
by the way, is the default cluster size for drives <16G in size--so for most
of us, changing cluster size probably won't buy much).

I would much rather format the card in the camera than on a windows
box for the simple reason it's a PITA to erase images.

conurus · May 7, 2007

I recently did some research on this and from what I gather you format the compact flash with a cluster size of 32k. This is FAT for 2GB and smaller and FAT32 for 4G or larger, Windows won't let you format 32k clusters otherwise. The reason why 32k was chosen was because it was the largest cluster size most cameras support, and a worse-case wastage of 32k per file is nothing given image files are so large.

W.W. Webster · May 7, 2007

rutt wrote:

I have some vague memory that one can get better performance from large CF cards if one formats them on a computer in some non-default sort of way.

What do you mean by 'better performance' that justifies risking the reliability of your cards by formatting them on other than the camera they will be used with?

Better formatting of large CF cards?

Comments