[PROBLEM] Can't mount exFAT HDD

[Peiote]

(27th Mar, 2016 12:52 AM)IriDium Wrote:  No too sure why you'd want exFAT but I guess you want compatibility between Windoze and Linux.

It's more than likely the drivers are not installed (They should be)

Try

Terminal

sudo apt-get -s install exfat-utils exfat-fuse exfat-utils

It should say something along the lines of already newest version.

Now check "dmesg" and see if the drive is recognised ditto "lsusb". If so,

Terminal

# sudo mkdir /media/Tempdir
sudo mount /dev/sdxx (Possibly sda1) -h exfat /media/Tempdir

If that works, then it's not automounting (Not too sure if that's a bug or a limitation). For now, you'll need to enter it into fstab to be able to use it, or try another FS - NTFS or EXT4

I did this:

Terminal

sudo apt-get -s install exfat-utils exfat-fuse exfat-utils

Not working, it seems:

Terminal

[ 84.797751] systemd-logind[2205]: New session c1 of user xbian.
[ 127.514698] usb 1-1.4: USB disconnect, device number 7
[ 130.775494] usb 1-1.4: new high-speed USB device number 8 using dwc_otg
[ 135.864931] usb 1-1.4: New USB device found, idVendor=0402, idProduct=5637
[ 135.864945] usb 1-1.4: New USB device strings: Mfr=0, Product=1, SerialNumber=2
[ 135.864953] usb 1-1.4: Product: USB 2.0 Storage Device
[ 135.864960] usb 1-1.4: SerialNumber: 00000000000123456789
[ 135.865597] usb-storage 1-1.4:1.0: USB Mass Storage device detected
[ 135.865898] scsi host1: usb-storage 1-1.4:1.0
[ 136.868727] scsi 1:0:0:0: Direct-Access USB 2.0 Storage Device 0100 PQ: 0 ANSI: 0 CCS
[ 136.869376] sd 1:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0
[ 136.871111] sd 1:0:0:0: [sda] 586072368 512-byte logical blocks: (300 GB/279 GiB)
[ 136.883999] sd 1:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
[ 136.884018] sd 1:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 08 00 00 00
[ 136.884758] sd 1:0:0:0: [sda] No Caching mode page found
[ 136.884775] sd 1:0:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through
[ 136.904981] sda: sda1
[ 136.907303] sd 1:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI disk

Terminal

xbian@xbian ~ $ lsusb
Bus 001 Device 006: ID 045e:0714 Microsoft Corp.
Bus 001 Device 005: ID 045e:0717 Microsoft Corp.
Bus 001 Device 004: ID 045e:0707 Microsoft Corp. Wireless Laser Mouse 8000
Bus 001 Device 008: ID 0402:5637 ALi Corp. M5637 IDE Controller
Bus 001 Device 003: ID 0424:ec00 Standard Microsystems Corp. SMSC9512/9514 Fast Ethernet Adapter
Bus 001 Device 002: ID 0424:9514 Standard Microsystems Corp.
Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002 Linux Foundation 2.0 root hub

Terminal

xbian@xbian ~ $ df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/mmcblk0p2 14874624 713628 14076692 5% /
none 4 0 4 0% /sys/fs/cgroup
devtmpfs 371524 4 371520 1% /dev
/dev/mmcblk0p2 14874624 713628 14076692 5% /home
/dev/mmcblk0p2 14874624 713628 14076692 5% /lib/modules
none 75176 380 74796 1% /run
/dev/mmcblk0p1 69478 18816 50662 28% /boot
/dev/mmcblk0p2 14874624 713628 14076692 5% /xbmc-backup

Terminal

$ sudo mount /dev/sda1 -h exfat /media/Tempdir

Usage:
mount [-lhV]

(27th Mar, 2016 03:21 AM)Nachteule Wrote:  Seems exFAT also requirere fuse. So why not using NTFS?

Quote:It's more than likely the drivers are not installed (They should be)

How many users are using exFAT? FAT sounds for me like a very very antiquated and STONE OLD file system, I never would use this FS.

FAT is obsolete, agree. It doesn't allow files over 4 GB.
exFAT is newer than FAT and FAT32; it allows any size.
exFAT is compatible between Windows, MAC and Linux (writable).

Plus, it seems it is better for intensive writing than NTFS, e.g. using transmission (I am a heavy torrent user):

Quote:[...]
exFAT does not have as much of the operational overhead of NTFS as it lacks many features that add complexity (and therefore processing time and disk latency) to the filesystems.
[...]
However, exFAT should be a true competitor to NTFS on systems with limited processing power and memory. NTFS on flash memory has been known to be inefficient for quite some time. exFAT’s smaller footprint/overhead makes it ideal for this purpose.
http://superuser.com/questions/257646/why-should-i-use-exfat-over-ntfs-on-removable-media

Quote:[...]
exFAT can be used where the NTFS file system is not a feasible solution (due to data structure overhead), yet the file size limit of the standard FAT32 file system is unacceptable.
exFAT has been adopted by the SD Card Association as the default file system for SDXC cards larger than 32 GiB.
[...]
A FUSE-based implementation named fuse-exfat, or exfat-fuse, with read/write support is available for FreeBSD and multiple Linux distributions. A kernel implementation has also been released, written by Samsung. It was initially released on GitHub unintentionally, and later released officially by Samsung in compliance with the GPL. None of the solutions can become an official part of Linux due to the patent encumbered status of the exFAT filesystem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT

Plus, I read this in other raspberry pi forums:

Quote:i would use exfat, NTFS driver in linux is reverse engineered.. aka made of guess work i would not trust it.. read is fine but writing a lot like torrent would do is not recommended at least not by me!

Quote:Ok, I did some tests using rsync between ext4, NTFS and exFAT. Main conclusion: Om y system (OE 3.0.3) NTFS is the slowest, and exFAT is on par with ext4 regarding speed (not data integrity, of course).

The tests are done over a wired home network. My desktop runs Linux Mint 13 64-bit. The external drive is a 2TB 2.5" HHD, attached to a powered USB hub.

I did three test:

Copying over ssh
NTFS reading: 1.370.936
NTFS writing: 1.001.977
exFAT reading: 1.370.936
exFAT writing: 2.098.062
ext4 reading: 1.401.288
ext4 writing: 2.169.995
Copying to / from a mounted Samba share
NTFS reading: 2.195.082
NTFS writing: 1.477.623
exFAT reading: 2.583.328
exFAT writing: 5.063.323
ext4 reading: 2.812.957
ext4 writing: 5.503.612
Copying locally on the RPi (file was copied from/to home directory)
NTFS reading: 1.168.459
NTFS writing: 3.0379.94
exFAT reading: 4.364.934
exFAT writing: 3.302.167
ext4 reading: 4.083.325
ext4 writing: 3.549.058