Can you compress a USB Pen Drive?

[USMC_Grunt]

Just what the question asks. I am currently using Win98, and I went to the properties of the drive and it said that I could compress it. So instead of being 64MB, it would be about 120MB. Is that possible or safe?

[plot]

i dont see why not. compressing is just like making a zip file...

[YoUnAn]

Well of coarse you can compress it. Just hold it in your hand and squeeze. lol.

ok ok back on topic.
Wouldnt compressing damage the USB drive?

[Phoenix86]

File compression is a feature of the file system, so you should be able to compress it. That is a very good idea for those pen drives (assuming it works), as access time/throughput isn't as important as space.

So the question is, what file system is it formatted with?

edit: d'oh just read your have 98, but I'm still curious if it's fat or fat32...

[jagec]

you can compress it, but it WILL be slower. And have some CPU overhead too.

[jpnelson83]

While we are on the topic of USB pen drives...I've got on that is formatted with Fat32 would it be possible to reformat it using NTFS or are pen drives unable to be reformatted. If it can be reformatted what is the risk of fubaring it?

[Falls Included]

you can reformat them easily, but the thing is its only with fat or fat32, ntfs isnt an option (yet) hmm, ill try my sandisk cruzer with partition magic, it may work that way, but i doubt it, maybe disk management.

i doubt you will damage the thing, unless you try to overclock it...:D

[plot]

Originally posted by fallsincluded
you can reformat them easily, but the thing is its only with fat or fat32, ntfs isnt an option (yet) hmm, ill try my sandisk cruzer with partition magic, it may work that way, but i doubt it, maybe disk management.

i doubt you will damage the thing, unless you try to overclock it...:D

funny you mention that, a guy i know had a 64mb pen drive and broke the tip off... he soldered it back on, and when he did, he soldered all the datalines back, his 64mb pen drive turned into a 256mb. turns out, the manufacturer produced the same pen drive and left off certain datalines to determine the size of it!

[Gibson]

do you recall which brand that was?

[Falls Included]

:D :D :D :D :D

[Falls Included]

im opening mine up as we speak

[Falls Included]

http://www.x2tpro.com/i/[h]/cruzer1.jpg http://www.x2tpro.com/i/[h]/cruzer2.jpg

http://www.x2tpro.com/i/[h]/cruzer3.jpg http://www.x2tpro.com/i/[h]/cruzer4.jpg

http://www.x2tpro.com/i/[h]/cruzer5.jpg http://www.x2tpro.com/i/[h]/cruzer6.jpg

http://www.x2tpro.com/i/[h]/cruzer7.jpg

[Phoenix86]

*rubs eyes* Your camera got macro mode? I think thats the setting for upclose non-blurry images.

[Falls Included]

i used my web cam, i was too lazy to get my digicam out.. i just had to adjust the focus ring, sorry. i do still need to know how to fuckin mod it to be higher, if that is possible

[shaihulud]

untrue, you can use all the forms of file systems, but it has been tested over and over and fat was found to be the fastest. even when i tested with my mini cruzer ntfs was very slow. fat32 was a bit slower. fat was about the speed that i would expect. also fat gave the most allocated space. the difference was 1 to 2 megs with different file systems.

btw - at comp usa the exact same special i used is being promoted. a 256meg cruzer mini for 50 george's. it has been very good, i must say. look for the store ad in the upper left hand coner.

[Phoenix86]

shaihulud, I would expect what you said about the file systems. Fat32 and NTFS are more robust file systems, not faster. I would also expect more allocated room under FAT, it's just the nature of the beast. The reason people want NTFS is probably for the security of the file system, not the space/speed.

[Ice Czar]

FAT32 has alot less overhead than NTFS especially on small volumes, and does offer a performance benefit at those sizes, of course its also lacks the permissions and recovery.


NTFS vs FAT (http://www.winnetmag.com/Articles/ArticleID/2744/pg/2/2.html)
So why use FAT?..... It can be the best choice for small volumes because its simple nature and low overhead make it fast on these volumes

NTFS Performance
"NTFS is also built for speed. NTFS provides impressive disk I/O performance on large volumes such as those on file servers or advanced workstations and is the best file system for such machines. This performance gain applies only to volumes larger than 400MB because of NTFS's overhead from its security and reliability features.

NTFS uses a binary tree structure for all disk directories, which reduces the number of times the system has to access the disk to locate files. This system is best for large directories, and NT easily outperforms FAT in these situations. In addition, NTFS automatically sorts files in a folder on the fly.

Another performance-related feature is NTFS's resistance to file fragmentation. NTFS uses a special process of writing files to disk. This process minimizes file fragmentation by making intelligent choices about where to store file data on the disk. In contrast to FAT's first-available method, NTFS's method of writing files reduces, but does not eliminate, the problem of file fragmentation on NTFS volumes.

NT also gains an edge over FAT by using relatively small disk allocation units (cluster sizes) for NTFS volumes. Smaller clusters prevent wasted disk space on volumes, especially those with numerous small files. Table 2 lists the default cluster sizes for various NTFS volumes sizes.

As Table 2 shows, the largest NTFS cluster size is 4KB, even on volumes larger than 2GB. Because NTFS uses small clusters better and has a more efficient design, its performance doesn't degrade with large volumes, in contrast to FAT's.

When you format an NT volume, NT chooses a cluster size to fit the volume size. With NTFS, you can select the cluster size for the volume when you use the FORMAT command from the NT command prompt (this solution is not possible from Disk Administrator). To set the cluster size, use the /A switch with the FORMAT command as follows: FORMAT <drive>/FS:<filesystem /A: <unitsize>

Despite the flexibility this feature provides, you generally won't need to specify manual NTFS cluster sizes. NT can automatically configure them for you. NT works best with volumes at the settings it specifies, and changing these settings can adversely affect your system's performance.

[shaihulud]

it is different with flash drives. here is a good usb forum: http://www.everythingusb.com/forums/index.php?

when it takes 3+ minutes to copy or move a file over, the file system is not robust for the flash drive (note: this is using 2.0 and 1.1 speeds). i tested it myself and was very shocked at the facts. one, less space with other files system when compared to fat. two, speed was slower on fat32 and very slow with ntfs. so fat is the choice for flash drives.

one more point to make is that fat can be read by any operating system-win9x, win2k, winxp, linux, osx. which, still will make it a better more compatible choice. security, thats a given easy arguement that does not need to go any further.

read up on ntfs and you will see why it is slow with flash drives. it is meant for larger volumes with different demands.

[Ice Czar]

so thats FAT12 like a FDD?

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/fdd/format.htm

[shaihulud]

its fat16

windows xp only supports fat12 when formatting floppies.

i really wish i can record a video of the difference. it was a tremendous one, really.

[Phoenix86]

You did read Ice Czars' post about cluster sizes? Reduce the cluster size for smaller volumes for increased access times. The overhead will reduce speed vs. other file systems, but NTFS did install/run on >1GB volumes just fine. So, 'it's a small volume' isn't the reason...

[shaihulud]

as i have said i fully tested this. here were my results copying service pack 1a (xpsp1a_en_x86.exe) 131,174,400, 125megs:

file system / size of drive after format / time it took to copy file over to flash drive (sandisk, cruzer mini 256megs). edit note: usb 2.0 speed/p4-3c/875p/ich5r

fat16 / 249megs / 22sec
fat32 / 248megs / 25sec
ntfs 512 / 246megs / 1m 13s
ntfs 1k / 247megs / 1m 12s
ntfs 2k / 247megs / 1m 11s
ntfs 4k / 247megs / 1m 7s


i was very thorough. i also wanted to make sure that my drive was not defective. i thought this to be odd. but the consensus is that fat is the best file system for flash drives and i experienced the concrete evidence-along with many others. extra space, faster, multi-operating system readable.

[jpnelson83]

hey sorry about the thread hijacking, I didn't think this issue would take off as much as it has. At least its sorta still on topic.:confused:

[Phoenix86]

shaihulud,

WOW that's an amazing difference. Thanks for the info.

[shaihulud]

your welcome. i was not trying to be a prick. i was serious about the difference. although, it may not exhibit in other drives. some say the sandisk titanium is very fast and this makes me wonder about the performance difference with file systems using it. if this was a harddrive there would be no doubt that ntfs is what i would use.