Tuxera has introduced FAT+, a new file system for removable storage on embedded systems that’s compatible with FAT32 but without the limitations such as the 4GB file size limit, and brings fail-safety and performance optimization. FAT+ is allegedly one of the recommended file systems by the Universal Flash Storage Association (UFSA) for the next-generation Universal Flash Storage (UFS) cards.
Some of the key features of Tuxera FAT+ implementation include:
- Supported Operating Systems – Android, Linux, Chrome OS, Firefox OS, Tizen
- Hardware Architecture – ARM, ARM64, Intel x86/x86_64 or compatible, MIPS, MIPS64, PowerPC, SH4, and more
- Capacity
- Maximum volume size – 2 TiB with 512-byte sectors, 16 TiB with 4096-byte sectors
- Maximum allocation block size – sector size in bytes x 128
- Maximum file size – 16 TiB
- Maximum filename length – 255 characters (16-bit)
- Supported sector sizes – 512, 1024, 2048, and 4096 bytes
- Interoperability
- Conforms to all Microsoft FAT versions including XP, Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 10 (Microsoft Interop Vendor Alliance)
- Compatible with Linux VFAT (incl. Android VFAT)
- Compatible with Mac OS X FAT driver
- Compatible with RTOS standard FAT
- Support for all flash-based storage types such as SD cards, eSD, CF cards, SSD, USB-connected storages, UFS cards, and eMMC
- Support for APM, GPT, and MBR partition schemes
FAT+ requires at least 1MB RAM, and a 25MHz processor to operate properly, with the memory and CPU foot print as follows: 40 to 60 KB for R/W implementation, 25 to 35 KB for read-only, and 0 to 10% CPU usage. The interoperability section means that, for example, you can upgrade your firmware from VFAT to FAT+ without the user noticing, except for the faster performance – up to 2.3 times compared to VFAT, increased reliability, and support for large files. The company has also made tools for FAT+ file system such as mkfatfs, fatfsck, fatinfo and so on.
Tuxera business model is to sell licenses to companies that use their file systems implementations into their products. I’ve used their NTFS file system in several embedded systems, and the performance is much better, especially on lower end platforms where performance may be CPU bound. You’ll find more details on the product page, where you should also be able to ask for license pricing for your product(s).
Jean-Luc started CNX Software in 2010 as a part-time endeavor, before quitting his job as a software engineering manager, and starting to write daily news, and reviews full time later in 2011.
Support CNX Software! Donate via cryptocurrencies, become a Patron on Patreon, or purchase goods on Amazon or Aliexpress
http://boycottnovell.com/wiki/index.php/Tuxera
Sounds sketchy to me if it is doing voodoo to make FAT+ work seamlessly with systems that only ever supported FAT16/32 unless I’m reading this wrong.
If it doesn’t do that and if your paying money to integrate into a new product you may as well just license exFAT from Microsoft directly (who also still owns a lot of patents on FAT).
@Dan exFat is really, really expensive to license unless it’s changed in the past two years. There’s a lump sum to pay first and if you go over a certain amount of devices per year, it gets crazy expensive and Microsoft will sue you if they find out you use a “free” exFAT solution, like the open source ones, in a retail product.
@TLS
It’s proprietary, and only paying customers will get it into their products.
So most products won’t use this.
@cnxsoft
That might well be the case, but Tuxera’s license costs are way lower than what Microsoft wants for exFAT. If this can work as a direct replacement in most scenarios, I’d much prefer this. Looking at this, it’s not their “invention” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#FAT.2B
Summary: Tuxera heralds Microsoft’s tax era in Android and Linux; thus it should be left to rot… Tuxera is not a Free software player but a parasite.
Full explanation here (I’m not the Author):
http://techrights.org/2015/01/06/boycott-tuxera/
@TLS
Surprising considering that exFAT is a very low tech filesystem. It doesn’t have anything innovative, just few patches over FAT32. All Linux filesystems and NTFS are more capable and complex.
nowadays it’s not about ideas, advance and innovation but just who patents it first
Looks like exactly those whining idiots are “parasites”, – doing nothing except writing insane “boycott” pages. It’s really funny how you made the classification – there are either “free software players” or “parasites”. Seriously? Do you really believe in that sh!t? Come on! I always am wondered how easily people fall into herd instinct – you are attacking just because some crazy zealots wrote delirious things on their site. What that Tuxera did bad for you? Are they forcing you to use their products? they just developed something as it states. That’s all. in fact, all linux fanboys should be really happy, that now, possibly, something from their land will be accepted as a “standard” for something. even if this is a calque of a MS ancient FS. But for sure, this is not a reason to become a crazy jerk. if you don’t like their products (even without using them), maybe it’s easier to just ignore them without adding to this craziness. “fighting corporations” is a mania. honestly, looking at those “boycott” sites makes an impression that they have been made by not exactly sane humans. no need to excite them more than they already are replicating their maniacal ideas.
PS. I just went the link you gave, omg this that guy, again. writing above i was thinking exactly about his “creatures”, remembering, I saw them recently. as an example of one the most acute zealotry. and that’s him again. well, this is kind of a good thing, maybe they are not as numerous and the humanity is not endangered. xD
@cortex-a72
And except ad hominem , do you have any arguments?
The point is Tuxera doesn’t play open source at all … and, have already done GPL Violations.
Funny to not respect the IP of others when your business model is based on other accepting yours …
they should be sued for violations, by offended parties, the article was not about their alleged violations, but about their “invention”. that seemed to be a topic. but it looks like the blog author could just write out the word Tuxera, not adding anything, because this is a marker triggering a lot of “fighters” to make noise. blaming big(R) evil(R) greedy(R) corporations for their violations. a discussion readily degenerates into quoting boycott psycho sites. very useful. especially if this FAT+ thing gets adopted by UFS. 🙂
Tuxera guys read your comments, and sent me some feedback by email: