NTFS or FAT file system?

[JulesMaximus]

NTFS...no question about it.

 

[Nothinman]

Bah, after my NTFS partition gettting corrupted on my machines and having to spend days trying to recover files using the program PC File Recovery (didn't recover all anyways) I'm done with NTFS.

If everyone stopped using something after having 1 or 2 problems with it, Windows would have never taken off like it did.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Bah, after my NTFS partition gettting corrupted on my machines and having to spend days trying to recover files using the program PC File Recovery (didn't recover all anyways) I'm done with NTFS.

If everyone stopped using something after having 1 or 2 problems with it, Windows would have never taken off like it did.

true true.... But I did notice a performance DECREASE when using NTFS and I'm not too worried about security. It hasn't shown to me that it's more reliable than FAT32 despite reading tons of things stating that it should be. Just like when people first thought NTFS systems didn't need a defragmenter just because the way the are...

 

[Continuity]

On Windows based PCs, NTFS.

I do lots of video editing, which involves many large files. FAT has severe limitations in regards to large files (over 2GB or 4GB depending). If you do video editing for example, and the file you are creating ends up passing this barrier - you just pissed away all that time on a useless incomplete file, you WON'T be able to finish the job. Nice knowing that you'll never be able to do the job without breaking the file up in some weird workaround isn't it...

The difference in speed between NTFS and FAT is miniscule at best, and one doesn't have a clear advantage in speed over the other anyhow - they flip positions depending.

Plus NTFS has added security, not that that's my main reason for using it.

I see "media creation" computers that idiot companies set up that use FAT32 still on the main partitions, and the people ALWAYS run into the problems and limitations of FAT... Convert to NTFS please. Or keep your 0.4% speed increase with showstopper limitations. (I believe they even made workarounds for the file size barrier issue, oh right, it's called NTFS )

 

[Nothinman]

It hasn't shown to me that it's more reliable than FAT32 despite reading tons of things stating that it should be.

And it hasn't shown you that it's less reliable either. And the fact remains that FAT is an extremely fragile filesystem, I would wager that you had something on those machines that caused the problems and you would have had similar issues had you been using FAT instead of NTFS.

Just because your pinto has never blown up, doesn't mean it's a reliable car.

Just like when people first thought NTFS systems didn't need a defragmenter just because the way the are...

Those people are idiots, MS would never do something that would take away a lucrative market from 3rd party developers by writing a filesystem driver that requires no defragmenting.

 

[KoolDrew]

When install Windows XP how do you specify the cluster size used for the partision? Also what cluster size would provide the best performance for a 30Gb hard drive when I only use about 9GB of it?

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Continuity
On Windows based PCs, NTFS.

I do lots of video editing, which involves many large files. FAT has severe limitations in regards to large files (over 2GB or 4GB depending). If you do video editing for example, and the file you are creating ends up passing this barrier - you just pissed away all that time on a useless incomplete file, you WON'T be able to finish the job. Nice knowing that you'll never be able to do the job without breaking the file up in some weird workaround isn't it...

The difference in speed between NTFS and FAT is miniscule at best, and one doesn't have a clear advantage in speed over the other anyhow - they flip positions depending.

Plus NTFS has added security, not that that's my main reason for using it.

I see "media creation" computers that idiot companies set up that use FAT32 still on the main partitions, and the people ALWAYS run into the problems and limitations of FAT... Convert to NTFS please. Or keep your 0.4% speed increase with showstopper limitations. (I believe they even made workarounds for the file size barrier issue, oh right, it's called NTFS )

Oh yea... I really didn't think of the 4GB size barrier but yes that is absoulutely true. That you would want NTFS if working with media files or anyfiles greater than 4GB. That is one clear advantage of using NTFS that I can see.

There are utilities to change the cluster size after XP is installed but to do it before XP is installed you have to be in some sort of command prompt and use some switches to specify cluster size. Try format /? for help with which cluster sizes are available. I dont know them off the top of my head.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
There are utilities to change the cluster size after XP is installed but to do it before XP is installed you have to be in some sort of command prompt and use some switches to specify cluster size. Try format /? for help with which cluster sizes are available. I dont know them off the top of my head.

from format /?:

/A:size Overrides the default allocation unit size. Default settings
are strongly recommended for general use.
NTFS supports 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16K, 32K, 64K.
FAT supports 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16K, 32K, 64K,
(128K, 256K for sector size > 512 bytes).
FAT32 supports 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16K, 32K, 64K,
(128K, 256K for sector size > 512 bytes).

Note that the FAT and FAT32 files systems impose the
following restrictions on the number of clusters on a volume:

FAT: Number of clusters <= 65526
FAT32: 65526 < Number of clusters < 4177918

Format will immediately stop processing if it decides that
the above requirements cannot be met using the specified
cluster size.

NTFS compression is not supported for allocation unit sizes
above 4096.

 

[Nothinman]

When install Windows XP how do you specify the cluster size used for the partision? Also what cluster size would provide the best performance for a 30Gb hard drive when I only use about 9GB of it?

You don't, when you use the installer formatting it just uses 4K because that's best all around cluster size.

That you would want NTFS if working with media files or anyfiles greater than 4GB.

Like DVD ISOs since DVD burners are getting so popular now.

 

[KoolDrew]

You don't, when you use the installer formatting it just uses 4K because that's best all around cluster size.

Why? A larger cluster size would give me better performance

 

[DouglasAdams]

sorry erik, i really didn't mean to rattle anyones cage.

however, given that windows systems need very frequent security patches and other updates after which you invariably need a reboot, whereas, i am lead to believe, Linux system install patches on the fly and need less critical patches to start with, i fail to see how Linux cannot get me better uptimes. in fact, last time i updated my windows system it said it needed to update the updating software; then it wanted a reboot; then it again wanted to update the updating software; then another reboot; then the updates i actually wanted (thankfully none of which needed to be applied individually); then yet another reboot.
my personal record (as recored with the uptime project) for keeping a windows system up and running is 59+ days but i was so far behind with "essential" security patches that i didn't want to risk it any longer. i'm hoping that Linux will not need any of this type of reboot but please tell me if i'm wrong.

as for me being more specific, sorry but if i knew what to ask i would be. i was just hoping that a few people who remember what it was like to be a virgin and how many things they would have done differently if only they'd known, might like to pass on some of their wisdom. maybe it won't apply to me but who cares, someone might gain from it.

i'll start new treads for the other issues.

thanks for your time.

 

[Nothinman]

Why? A larger cluster size would give me better performance

In most cases it won't, NT already does filesystem read ahead (up to 64K IIRC).

 

[KoolDrew]

So if using FAT32 with large clusters it would provide better performance but not with NTFS?

 

[Nothinman]

It shouldn't provide a noticable performance increase with either filesystem. And you have to realize that benchmarks don't count, most of the time they're tailored to prove a point and are nothing at all like normal use patterns.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Why? A larger cluster size would give me better performance

In most cases it won't, NT already does filesystem read ahead (up to 64K IIRC).

Regardless of read-ahead using larger cluster sizes would ensure the data is stored more contigouosly on the hard disk (less clusters to get fragmented and therefore less drive seeks to access them).

So if using FAT32 with large clusters it would provide better performance but not with NTFS?

I would think that you would see a marginal increase regardless of what file system you run if the cluster size is larger (you would also see an increase in slack). If nothing else simply for the reason stated above, any reduction in drive seeks (especially in a single-disk configuration) is going to yield a higher total throughoput.

 

[Nothinman]

Regardless of read-ahead using larger cluster sizes would ensure the data is stored more contigouosly on the hard disk (less clusters to get fragmented and therefore less drive seeks to access them).

That's assuming that the file access is largely sequential.

 

[ktwebb]

i'm afraid that one day winxp crashes, and i can't get to my files.

Knoppix. MUCH better at retrieving data as well as preferable over MS Windows PE. IMO anyway.