Re: Fat32 vs NTFS ?

From: DevilsPGD (ihatespam_at_crazyhat.net)
Date: 02/27/05


Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:01:33 -0700

In message <1121r6hsm76r46f@corp.supernews.com> AD
<graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote:

>> - Less risk of loss and corruption of data
>
>I would not go that far, I have lost more data with NTFS than fat32

Then you probably didn't have the right recovery tools or spend enough
time recovering. The techniques can be different, but recovery of most
of the data should be possible unless there is hardware failure.

Thanks to journaling and the way the file system is distributed, chances
of the complete disk being lost because any one
cluster/sector/track/whatever went bad is virtually zero.

>> - Smaller cluster size, causing less data overhead and lower performance
>> impact from fragmentation
>
>Drives get fragmented more.

NTFS avoids fragmentation by attempting to find an appropriately large
block of space in which to write a file, vs the typical FAT
implementation which writes the file either at the first available
space, or sequentially across the disk.

>> - Native compression support
>Never used it

If you ever need it, it's there for you. It can also be a significant
performance boost under some cases.

>> - Better long file name support
>
>That can be a good idea, but it can also be silly.

Since long file names are a reality (And used internally by Windows'
default directory names), why piss around storing them in the
traditional FAT method?

>If I change back to XP, as I am using ME at the moment, I am going to
>keep my drives as fat32. at least if anything goes wrong, I can stick
>the drive in the other computer and get more chance of saving any files.

My sympathies.

-- 
The preceding post may have contained foul language, 
and should not have been read by young children.


Relevant Pages

  • Re: convert external drive?
    ... >> and D: (NTFS) drives. ... Right now, everything is FAT32, and the external drive is ... So unless you have some special need for a FAT32 partition on your ... All, or virtually all, commercially-available USB external hard drives ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: pagefile
    ... Unless you know WHY you are clinging to FAT32, use NTFS all the way with Win2K and later. ... The rest of the page file can be wherever you have room, and it can be divided into several smaller page files on different drives. ... But WinXP is so much better at managing this than previous Windows versions, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.file_system)
  • Re: convert external drive?
    ... > and D: (NTFS) drives. ... Right now, everything is FAT32, and the external drive is ... So unless you have some special need for a FAT32 partition on your ... All, or virtually all, commercially-available USB external hard drives ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: partition&page file
    ... large USB hard drives being commonly available. ... NTFS can be more secure and it has some additional ... need to get data off of the drive, or do some manual repairs to files, FAT32 ... the partition from another operating system, like 98, or LINUX. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
  • Re: Is NTFS OK for Audio?
    ... >> streamed faster using FAT32. ... >> considering converting my data drive to NTFS. ... because my SOP for messed-up FAT32 drives these days ... is failing from a hardware standpoint. ...
    (rec.audio.pro)