Fat / Fat32 / NTFS

[RazorWind]

Is there any difference in access time, read/write performance, ... between these different file systems, and if so which one is the fastest??

 

[Feenix]

I myself found NTFS to be faster when using an NT based O/S such as Win2k/XP - it is also essential to use NTFS if u wanna create large partitions (something over 30Gb afaik) under NT based systems.

I've been using NTFS for ages now & it lets u compress your HD files, indexed searching & other neat stuff like that I'd say use NTFS but remember u won't be able to plug your HD into a system running FAT32 as it won't recognise it.

Hopes this helps

 

[Goosemaster]

NFTS is by its nature, going to be slower than FAT32 because it has all the security to deal with. BUt still, the difference sin speed is not worth the pety(yes, pety) improvement.

FAT16 is worthless now...it addresses the data with only a 16-bit depth, allowing for only 2GB max...don't quote me on that last one.

NFTS is the king, for windows anyways....the LINUX file systems are great too...

 

[Nothinman]

I had a small vbs script that created 32768 empty files, on FAT it took 45 minutes, on NTFS ~30 seconds. Same script but putting some data in the file (to force more than a directory/MFT entry) FAT took 1.5 hours and NTFS 2minutes.

All versions of FAT are worthless and shoddy and should be avoided at all costs.

but remember u won't be able to plug your HD into a system running FAT32 as it won't recognise it.

Funny, I have both NTFS and FAT32 partitions.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< I had a small vbs script that created 32768 empty files, on FAT it took 45 minutes, on NTFS ~30 seconds. Same script but putting some data in the file (to force more than a directory/MFT entry) FAT took 1.5 hours and NTFS 2minutes.

All versions of FAT are worthless and shoddy and should be avoided at all costs.

but remember u won't be able to plug your HD into a system running FAT32 as it won't recognise it.

Funny, I have both NTFS and FAT32 partitions. >>



Guess he didnt read the FAQ.

 

[thornc]

The only reason I use FAT32 on a NT kernel OS is because of backcompatibility with some old software!
NTFS is the way to go!

!off-topic:!

monkey you almost had me scared with the freebsd link on your sig!!
Nice rant anyway!

Someday I'll have to give OpenBSD a test drive! I have version 2.7 on CD I got on a magazine, How different
is it from 3.0 or 2.9???

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< The only reason I use FAT32 on a NT kernel OS is because of backcompatibility with some old software!
NTFS is the way to go!

!off-topic:!

monkey you almost had me scared with the freebsd link on your sig!!
Nice rant anyway!

Someday I'll have to give OpenBSD a test drive! I have version 2.7 on CD I got on a magazine, How different
is it from 3.0 or 2.9??? >>



Wait for 3.1. There are some nice improvements in it. I would go with either -stable (3.0 right now) or -current (3.1 beta really). They will be the best way to go. I dont know how far back patches are back ported. ftp installs are pretty quick and easy if you have some bandwidth.

 

[Sunner]

I think someone asked about the back patching on misc a while back, and I think Theo answered that they back port two versions back.

Not sure though, just off the top of my head

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< I think someone asked about the back patching on misc a while back, and I think Theo answered that they back port two versions back.

Not sure though, just off the top of my head >>



2.7 is still out of that range

I wouldnt go any farther back than 2.9-stable anyhow. Too many improvements in the newer code.