[TriLUG] file formats

[jason watts]

no, it will just be storing of vidoe's, im planning on ripping some to most 
of my dvd collection, was told 1 gig is of decent quality, so, i rounded up 
because im not entirely sure i remember the conversation correctly

>From: Brian Henning <brian at strutmasters.com>
>Reply-To: Triangle Linux Users Group discussion list <trilug at trilug.org>
>To: Triangle Linux Users Group discussion list <trilug at trilug.org>
>Subject: Re: [TriLUG] file formats
>Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:20:48 -0400
>
>I have to recommend against FAT for video files.  Sure, FAT-32 claims to be 
>able to address something like 2TB of storage, but I think you're taking 
>chances by routinely storing upwards-of-two-GB files on any FAT partition.  
>For the record, FAT-32's maximum single-file size is (2^32) - 1 bytes, or a 
>byte less than 4GB (see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463/EN-US/ ).
>
>The OP said he guessed his files would be 1-2 GB in size..  But if we're 
>talking about video editing here, depending on the project, it seems too 
>likely that that'll prove a conservative estimate.
>
>~B
>
>Ian Kilgore wrote:
>>On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 08:29:31AM -0400, Brian Henning wrote:
>>>There are ext3 drivers for Windows, though I'm not sure if they're any 
>>>better at writing than Linux's NTFS modules..
>>>
>>>~B
>>
>>They almost certainly are, given that ext3 is open.  If you plan to be
>>blorping data back and forth between windows and linux, I don't
>>reccomend NTFS.  You /can/ write to it, but sometimes (often, in my
>>experience) it breaks, and why use it when you can use something that
>>works?  (eg FAT).
>>
>
>--
>----------------
>Brian A. Henning
>strutmasters.com
>336.597.2397x238
>----------------
>--
>TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
>TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/