Re: Convert FAT to NTFS

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance


"David J. Craig" <SeniorDriversWriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:uYHqciGpFHA.2152@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> That has to be one really huge USB drive if you are going to have more
> than 65K files on it. It is only the root folder that is limited. Also
> FAT32 has no limit in the root directory. Good luck and don't forget the
> NTFS compatibility issues with different versions of NTFS. AFAIK, all NT
> OSes will convert from a lower to a higher version, but not the other way.

The USB drives are in the 40+GB range -- yes, they are large.
FYI: The 64K files limit is also in FAT32 (FAT limitations are even worse),
and is "significantly reduced" by the use of long filenames (which everyone
uses these days). I copied a folder we have here, which had several
thousand sub-folders, and it bombed out going to a FAT32 drive -- hit that
limit.

You are right about not being able to convert back to FAT32.

Thanks for all the pointers.
DanB



> "Dan Baker" <dbmail> wrote in message
> news:O4aTjTBpFHA.2720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "David J. Craig" <SeniorDriversWriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> message news:u$2GfoApFHA.1872@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>I don't see any 'advantage'. I do see a lot of disadvantages though.
>>>Also watch out for encryption. If you use EFS, remember that encryption
>>>is certificate based and if your user does not save every certificate,
>>>their files will be gone if you have to rebuild. Using the same
>>>passwords will not get you access to that EFS encrypted data unless you
>>>have the backups of the certificates. You can make FAT32 use smaller
>>>cluster sizes even on large drives. The documented cluster size is not
>>>mandatory, but with the larger files becoming more common I don't know if
>>>you get hurt as much.
>>
>> The only advantage is "# of files per sub-folder". The end-user
>> application has too many files in a single sub-folder for FAT to handle
>> (because they use extremly long filenames, the # of files per sub-folder
>> under FAT is very limited).
>>
>> DanB
>>
>> Reference info:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_tdrn.asp
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Dan Baker" <dbmail> wrote in message
>>> news:%23lbMIVApFHA.3364@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> "David J. Craig" <SeniorDriversWriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>>> message news:eD$uw43oFHA.3912@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>I thought that flash drives (not media) were designed to be portable.
>>>>>If that is a common goal, why use a ever changing, undocumented,
>>>>>proprietary format? If you have NT4, 2000, XP (multiple SPs), 2003,
>>>>>and soon to be Vista, how can you use the drive for portability? Each
>>>>>time NTFS is updated, fixed, 'improved', 'feature enhanced', etc. it
>>>>>becomes a one-way update of the file system on the media, so the
>>>>>previous versions will not mount it anymore. FAT32 is staying the
>>>>>same. I still believe, even if many people who know and have seen the
>>>>>source, inside and outside of Microsoft, tell me it is a very well
>>>>>written file system with clean code, that since it is not provided with
>>>>>the IFS Kit there must be something wrong. Transactional NTFS will be
>>>>>another monster that will probably work, but will require a lot of free
>>>>>space while USB drives are usually used to transfer up to the full
>>>>>capacity.
>>>>
>>>> Good points. I agree with you.
>>>>
>>>> FYI: The main reason I'm converting to NTFS is for compatibility. Most
>>>> of my end-users are using NTFS, and are using an external USB hard
>>>> drive for backup -- I need the advantages of NTFS for that backup.
>>>>
>>>> DanB
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dan Baker" <dbmail> wrote in message
>>>>> news:OjURWH2oFHA.3304@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> "Richard Ward" <richardw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:w8WdnY7E0ckjSp_eRVn-gw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dan Baker" <dbmail> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:ewvQ9UGnFHA.2472@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> The issue I'm having is that most of my users have new machines
>>>>>>>> (XP/2K), and they are purchasing these little USB plug-n-play
>>>>>>>> drives (which are all formatted as FAT32 drives). I would like
>>>>>>>> these drives to be NTFS, and am trying to automate this process for
>>>>>>>> my end-users. They *may* already have data on the drives, and I
>>>>>>>> would rather not re-format the drive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You probably don't want to convert flash-based
>>>>>>> disks to NTFS. A real hard disk over usb/1394, sure,
>>>>>>> but not flash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All my end-users will have "real" hard drives (usually 30+GB).
>>>>>> But, I am curious why you recommend against NTFS for a flash-based
>>>>>> drive?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DanB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Convert NTFS USB drive to FAT32 -- How?
    ... won't format a partition that is over 32gb on a usb drive as fat32. ... requires that USB drives be formatted FAT32. ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)
  • freebie today only
    ... Wondershare USB Drive Encryption is a handy tool to encrypt USB drives ... Its US military-level 256-bit AES encryption can guarantee the ... registration code, with which you can activate the software. ...
    (uk.education.staffroom)
  • Re: dual password for file/folder encryption
    ... Look into Policy based encryption products from Pointsec or Credant. ... storage devices (USB drives etc). ... into that folder is automatically encrypted. ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Re: Mike W. Corner
    ... I have USB drives and network attached storage ... I was also told "Do X to save your encryption ... None of the backups were readable. ... ended a couple weeks back when the XP user profiles all decided to disappear ...
    (rec.motorcycles.dirt)