NTFS vs FAT32

[lighty]

Since this discussion is more suited to this part of forum I will continue what we started in thread http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=438146#post438146


AFAIK- FAT32 was a way to go a few years back when NTFS was in it's earlier and more crude stages with WinNT 4. However since then there has been a lot of changes that made it a primary choice for me.

1. Less fragmentation
2. Data redundancy so less possibility of data loss
3. Easier recovery of deleted files and partitions
4. File permissions can easily be set
5. File encryption is also suported

Also you would want to take a look at this http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

[Doom9]

Reasons to use FAT32:
You use Linux and Windows in a dual boot setup (NTFS can be read but not properly written to so far).

You use a windows pocket calculator OS (W9x/ME).

You love the good old times (but for god's sake use FAT12 then ;)

Honestly, NTFS is the way to go, especially if you're into digital video. The difference in speed has become insignificant since W2K and that was FAT's only real advantage unless you need data exchange.

[maa]

Whats this Topic got to do with "Site Suggestions & Help""

Fragmentation ?
The OS partition does just as much writing and re-writing the regitry as it alwas did - more so with XP because its bigger....



Heres a copy of my previous post before this topic got a thread of its own. Nearly all recording studios use FAT32 because it has less overhead and runs more tracks - it is a lot faster.
As I also run a studio, all my HDs are FAT32.
I know thats not a good argument for the developer of a program who has to weigh up the the amount of users with each system.
Fat32 is also easier to recover with dos tools afetr a HD crash etc. Recovery and repair is MUCH easier.
So with all the Bells and Whistles of NTFS, its not convincing me - theres nothing there I need except when a program can't write files to segments smaller than 4 Giga .

P.S. This might be better in "PC Hard & Software" or "General Discussion"

[lighty]

@Doom9
AFAIK- with the latest NTFS support for Linux I think FAT32 is not needed anymore even for penguin users. Take a look here http://www.jankratochvil.net/project/captive/


@maa
Sorry, my mistake. I was convinced I started this thread in "General" section. If some mod would be so kind to move this thread to proper section...

Anyway- the recovery is much more probable on NTFS partition because of redundant MFT. Believe me, in the course of my job I do have an experience that it is easier and more probable to make a sucessful recovery from NTFS rather than from FAT32 partition.

As for the speed- I think you're wrong. It's just that maybe the software you're using uses FAT32 more eficiently or uses some kind of direct access to HD but that doesn't have anything to do with FAT32 being faster. Also with today fast hard discs I would hardly be so bold to claim that I can see any difference in speed between FAT32 and NTFS.

[dragongodz]

actually you are both right. :)

please read carefully so my meaning is not misundertood.

"The OS partition"
this is what maa is refering to.
"Fat32 is also easier to recover with dos tools afetr a HD crash etc."
and this is true. try accessing the OS/system partition from a DOS disk sometime, pain in the #$@*.

"more probable to make a sucessful recovery from NTFS"
to some degree i agree though it is still not guarenteed of course.

so IMHO the best solution is actually a mixture. that is OS/system drive as FAT32 and data/work drive NTFS.

"AFAIK- with the latest NTFS support for Linux I think FAT32 is not needed anymore"
no entirly correct. yes there has been advances but you will find several distributions that still warn against writing to NTFS as it can still go wrong and corrupt data or even drive(even if just rarely).

[lighty]

@dragondz
I am speaking from practical experience when I talk about recovery. More often than not it is easier to recover deleted files from NTFS partition.

As for FAT32 and NTFS tools. Most of the partition and format tools that came out in the last two or three years support FAT32 as well as NTFS so I don't realy see any problem there.
There are also several useful tools like NTFS4DOS that allows classical DOS programs to access NTFS partitions.

I think it's merely a question of someone's inertia in the terms of accepting new technologies (and NTFS is not new technology for a long time now). I could draw parallel with classical and modern automobiles. Older type was simpler and could be easier mended with simpler tools on the other side, however, there are new models, full of gadgets and electronics that makes driving safer and consume less fuel but you cannot repair it without more sophisticated tools. So it is a question of whether you want to drive modern car, more safely and with less fuel consumption or do you prefer driving in the older model that you can access in a simpler way. Yes, both cars will take you to your destination but I think I would prefer a modern, more comfortable type.:cool:


As for Linux and NTFS partitions. If you would follow the link that I posted a few posts earlier in this thread you will find that that problem is more or less solved. It will take some time untill all distributions take it into account but it will become standard for Read/Write under NTFS.

[dragongodz]

"I am speaking from practical experience when I talk about recovery."
and of course the rest of us have absolutly no experience do we. sorry but thats rather irritating statement.

"More often than not it is easier to recover deleted files from NTFS partition."
which i did already agree with if you reread what i said. except when having to access NTFS from DOS, then it can become a pain.

"several useful tools like NTFS4DOS"
glad you mentioned it. yes NTFS4DOS can be used. there is still many more programs for accessing FAT32 though that dont require making special boot disks with things like that.

"I think it's merely a question of someone's inertia in the terms of accepting new technologies"
disagree totally. i already said i only use my system drive as FAT32 for easy access from DOS on the occasions i need to. since i DO use NTFS for my data drive your statement is plain wrong.

"As for Linux and NTFS partitions. If you would follow the link that I posted a few posts earlier in this thread you will find that that problem is more or less solved. It will take some time untill all distributions take it into account but it will become standard for Read/Write under NTFS."
and if you reread what i said you have just agreed with me. :)
YES it is more stable etc now "more or less"(to use your own words) but there is still a small risk there. especially since "It will take some time untill all distributions take it into account"(again your own words). so it is generally safer for now,especially for those unsure or inexperienced, to use FAT32 for shared drives they wish to write to constantly from linux.

i wont bother with your car example since there really is no comparison.

[sarahjh69]

I prefer FAT32

[port66]

The home user gets less cross linked cluster. called 0. and very few scandisk on boot if the use ntfs, personal files can be made personal too

[lighty]

@dragondz
When I am talking about recovery experience, what I meant was that it is a part of my daily job to recover lost data. I haven't meant it as an offensive statement.

As for my automobile comparison I think that analogy is more than adequate. But that's of course IMO.

@sarahjh69
Could you please post some link regarding your tests and comparisons? I am curious in seeing some performance comparison regarding different cluster settings (I am not being ironic, I realy am interested).

[dragongodz]

"I haven't meant it as an offensive statement."
yes lighty i didnt really think that you meant it to be but just pointing out that thats how that sort of statement sounds. look at sarahjh69's statement.
"When you have done some testing for yourselves, feel free to form
a conclusion. Opinions are like arses, everyone has one, nobody
else wants to hear it."
that sounds like its asumed we havent done any testing or have any experience to base what we say on. then says nobody wants to hear the opinion anyway. well thanks sarah but if you believe that why did you post your opinion ? no wait i dont want to hear your answer either. :devil:

"As for my automobile comparison I think that analogy is more than adequate. But that's of course IMO."
the failure of comparison comes in that you are comparing whole cars. thats more like comparing someone running windows 95 on a pentium 2 with a 4meg gfx cards and 64meg ram etc etc. if you look you will see i have said that i am using NTFS for my data hard drive so i am opbviouslly not running 95 to start with. nor do i have an ancient gfx card or so little memory etc. so a more accurate comparison would be a standard modern car compared to a modern car with 1 minor part based on or using older tech. if the person believes from there own experience that they have less problems with that 1 part compared to the modern equivilant then that is a more accurate comparison. very academic really since we did basically agree on most points. :D

[sarahjh69]

I still prefer FAT32

[lighty]

@dragondz
Indeed- the comparison is valid and in your case it would be like having a nice new car, with all of the electronics, computers, airbags
and stuff and have an carburator based engine instead of fuel injection one. And of course if you stop on some backwater road you would easier and faster fix carburetor based one.
But as you say it is purely academic discussion.:cool:


@sarahjh69
What you say is true and because of a certain level of redundancy on NTFS the lost data are more recoverable after a crash. That was one of the points that it seems we all agree on.

However since I haven't experienced any noticeable speed decrease on any of the systems that has NTFS I am still interested in the results of your cluster size vs speed comparison. Do you have any pertinent data you can share?
I am also interested in your claims about 20% CPU load, because, again I don't see any difference in everyday operation. More often the CPU load is the result of badly written or mismatched IDE BUS drivers and sometimes even a badly engineered southbridge. IMO- you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in CPU load on any of the newer systems in the last 2 or 3 years if using W2K or XP. On the other hand if you use K6 or Pentium 1 I suppose you will experience some slowdown.

My arguments are:
1.Modern systems uses more RAM and thus are able to reduce their usage of large swap files.
2.Modern hard discs use large amount of cache (8MB usualy) and have much faster seeking time and transfer rates so that shouldn't realy be a problem.


As for cluster size and speed reduction- I must tell you that default settings provided by XP are a good balance between speed and lower fragmentation coeficients per amount of stored data. Of course as with everything regarding any OS, by tweaking some system parameters you can either gain performance or reduce it significantly. Some of the people I work for use all of the factory settings and an average modern systems and are able to perform high-resolution video capturing without any problems or droped frames and their fragmentation after a few months is comparable to FAT32 drives.

So- I still think it's mainly a psychological rather than a real problem since NTFS is a lower risk, lower maintenance system but also a bit harder to work with in case you want to use DOS based disk management software. It also requires a somewhat newer configuration but we're not talking about anything fancy here, just an average configuration. On the other side FAT32 is a higher risk system but you're able to do more things from DOS easier and it would be your first choice for old configuration.

[BruceL]

If you use Norton Speed disk to optimize your OS partition it will not optimize the Page File (similar to Swap File in Win9X) on FAT32 with WinXP or Win2K. The Page File stays fragmented on the disk as it is when first installed. If you use NTFS, Speed Disk can move it to the beginning of the partition which is the outside of the disk where data can be read or written to faster. Helps to speed up virtual memory.

[lighty]

@BruceL
Or better yet- you can dedicate one small partition only for swap file and then set Windoze to use only that partition for swap file. You can gain speed performance and it is much easier to defragment 2GB partition than a 50GB one. I tried this system when I saw a simmilar stuff on Linux and indeed it works very well.

[lighty]

BTW- as for discussion about Linux not being able to fully access NTFS. This version of Linux Defender based on modified Knoppix does support fully all Read/Write operations on NTFS partitions.
ftp://ftp.bitdefender.com/pub/linux/free/LinuxDefender/

[BruceL]

@lighty
The small partition system sounds like a very good idea for a temporary swap file which can become fragmented. Win2K and WinXP's Page File system is like Win9X's Permanent Swap File option. That system allocates a permanent location of the disc for use. Norton Speed Disc further enhances it by making it contiguous and relocates it on the outside diameter of the disc where more area passes the heads quicker. Once allocated and moved, that section of the disc never becomes fragmented.

[PatE]

Hello @ everybody.

I prefer NTFS with my Windows XP Professional.

With enougt RAM you don´t have a big problem with your swap-file (I use 1 GB of RAM). But there are many difference because you should prefer NTFS instead of FAT.

SUSE Linux 9 is compleatly able to handly NTFS (with or without the NTFS-Copression). It can read, write and also it can put its Boot-Manager on a NTFS-drive.
Then think of the security of NTFS. You are able to encrypt complete directories or just single files for your special user. It is very usefull. And also the software-RAID with 2000 or XP: it is just possible when you use NTFS.

I know a lot of more reasons for NTFS (because I am a MCSE-Student and I have to learn everything about Windows 2000 Professional and Advance Server ;) ).

[Eyes`Only]

As someone who's been in the IT industry for 10+ years, I too know a lot of reasons to use NTFS, but I'm not sure the people in this thread that are against it would care, so I won't bother posting. I will however say the the claim about 10% loss of space is completely bullsh**, and in larger hdds, you actually save more space using NTFS than FAT32. FAT32 wastes more space that NTFS can use. NTFS uses 2 megs just for the header, which is why many ppl think it's wasteful. But over a large area, this loss is insignificant, and you can do more research yourself and see that NTFS actually gives you more space for large drives.

[sarahjh69]

I don't believe the everything new Microsoft does
is better.........

[JaTeMaTec]

I do use Fat32 (generated by PQ PM 8.01) at my C,D,E,F,G & H...(Tot. 400GB)
Fat32 does not have Partition size Limits anymore at XPSP1 & Up, my max. Fat32 partition is 156GB and it works just fine
Here are my operating Systems, Program Files, AAC (M4A) files, MP3's, Music Videos etc 0 -> 4GB stuff...

I do use NTFS at my I & J Drives (120GB + 160GB), because i use a lot big media files as DVD Rips putten in ISO/UDF format, TV-Recordings up to 12GB per file etc...

I think this is a meaningfull construction (but still an opinion :) ) when i do have 5 big HDs with 680GB room total. I have tested my drives (7200 rpm 8MB buffer) with SiSoftware's Sandra 2004 and found out that large Fat32 partitions are about 10-20 percent faster than NTFS (both sequential / random read / write operations).

What else: i like it that way and my Linux is taking few gigs of E & F for root, etc & swap and i have Win98SE at D + start all with PQ BootMagic : Ntldr / LiLo combination from there (No big problems and always room for opsys backups)...

JaTeMaTec

[dragongodz]

jeez whats with all this "i have this experience, i know what i am talking about, look how big my balls are" crap ?

as someone who uses both i can quite objectivly say there are times and/or circumstances where the use of either have advantages over the other. they have already been said so people should reread this whole thread if they didnt spot them. so if you are doing multiple different things with your system then a combination of FAT32 and NTFS CAN be a solution. all this "you MUST use FAT32" and "no you MUST use NTFS" is childish and getting nowhere.

"as for discussion about Linux not being able to fully access NTFS. This version of Linux Defender based on modified Knoppix does support fully all Read/Write operations on NTFS partitions."
"SUSE Linux 9 is compleatly able to handly NTFS (with or without the NTFS-Copression)."
are these the distros that the majority of people are using right now or likly to change to ? no. when the same can be said of mandrake and fedora etc releases and have been out for awhile(to allow for bugs to show up and people to upgrade to and test) and proven so(not just said on release) then i will agree. until then FAT32 for writing from linux is still the safer option for now(i repeat, for now).

so for my last post on this i will repeat. usage of both filesystems have their advantages and disadvantages. if a person wants to use one over the other for specific purposes because of said advantages it is up to them. pointing out the advantages of the other is fine but when you decide to ignore the advantages of the other the person is using it for aswell then the argument becomes biased and invalid.

as such can a mod close this thread soon as i really dont see it improving and cases and uses for bothe filesystems have already been given.

[maa]

Quite agree,
for Gods sake - close the thread !

[Stux]

I find it makes sense to use FAT32 on removable drives because many OSes support FAT32 but not NTFS (as an example, OSX)

So basically, if you format your USB2 or FireWire drives with FAT32 you can then mount them on almost any platform which supports the drives physical layer

A definite major plus for a portable drive.

[JaTeMaTec]

Yep - loss of space, loss of speed = loss of oxygen!

That's what this thread needs and it should be closed before it constipates to and / or goes to a Yo-Yo -Phenomen (Fat-Ntfs-Fat-Ntfs * 100000).

I have much room at HD's but no way i do brag with it - i use it!
(why did i even post this :-( - i am not here for counting up my posts...)

Peace!

[Eyes`Only]

I agree this thread should be closed. And note: nowhere did I say that one filesystem was better than another, I just pointed out a relevant statement of misinformation was made.