Re: FAT32 vs. NTFS

On Wed, 17 May 2006 19:39:06 +0200, Alias
Abraham wrote:

For 30 and 40 gigabyte multi-partition hard drives, is there any advantage to
using FAT32 vs. NTFS?

Forget about FAT32 forever.

Dumb answer.

See http://cquirke.org/ntfs.htm

I'll paste it...

Executive summary

NTFS is a better file system, but the available maintenance tools and
options suck.

Either choice, you will win some and lose some.

Detail

FATxx is an old file system that is simple, well-documented, readable
from a large number of OSs, and supported by a wide range of tools.

NTFS is a newer file system that is feature-rich, proprietary,
undocumented at the raw bytes level, and subject to change - even
within Service Packs of the same OS version.

Keeping NTFS proprietary allows Microsoft to root NT's security
features deep within the file system itself, but it does cast doubts
about the reliability and version-compatibility of third-party
support. Without an official maintenance OS from Microsoft, one is
forced to look to 3rd-party solutions, and the high stakes involved
make FUD about accuracy of NTFS support a serious issue.

You are obliged to use FATxx if you need access from DOS mode or
Win9x, e.g. in a dual-boot scenario.

You are obliged to use NTFS if you need support for files over 4G in
size, hard drives over 137G in size, and/or you need to implement some
of NT's security management that devolves down to NTFS.

Else, weigh up the pros and cons, and remember you can use multiple
volumes, with different file systems for each. Even FAT16 has niche
strengths (small FAT, large cluster size, easier data recovery) that
may make it attractive for certain types of content.

More detail

NTFS may be faster...
- smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM
- indexed design more efficient for many files per directory
- small file data embedded in dir level, avoids seek to data chain
- above factors make fragmentation less onerous than for FATxx
- 4k cluster size matches processor's natural paging size
....or slower...
- extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption
- small clusters may fragment data cluster chains

NTFS may be safer...
- transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations
- file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.
- automatically "fixes" failing clusters on the fly (controversial)
....or more at risk...
- no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS
- no maintenance OS for NTFS
- malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty
- transaction rollback does not preserve user data
- transaction rollback does not help other causes of corruption
- more limited range of maintenance tools
- automatically "fixes" failing clusters on the fly (controversial)

NTFS may be more space-efficient...
- smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G
- may include data of small files within the directory level
- NTFS's bitmap structure is smaller than FAT32's dual FAT
- sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage
....or less so...
- NTFS has large MFT structure
- larger per-file directory metadata space

I would use NTFS where:

Users have professional-grade IT admin, including backup
Users need to hide data more than they need to salvage it
Applications require files over 4G in size
Hard drive exceeds the 137G barrier

But while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...

Data can easily be recovered
File system structure can be manually checked and repaired
Malware can be scanned for and cleaned

....I would avoid the use of NTFS in consumer PCs


Since I wrote the above, it's possible to tackle malware via Bart PE
CDR - do a Google( Bart PE ) - but there are still no manual file
system repair or data recovery tools for NTFS.



-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Partition Magic Incompatibility??
    ... manual repair etc. are still abysmal for NTFS. ... FATxx, rather than anything inherent in the file systems. ... MS'a approach to file system maintenance seems to assume that the ... - a directory entry that points to the cluster chain ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: XP Less Secure than 98 for Sharing Files
    ... >folders & shares such that I don't have to bother with individual ... and requires NTFS; ... >> can't formally scan for malware, ... recovery and non-automated file system repair. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: FAT32 or NTFS?
    ... >>of a hugely bloated FAT and large cluster sizes, ... resilience --- As far as FAT partitions go, don't forget to wave goodbye to ... technologies imbedded in the file system ensure that data is only written on ... Which brings me to this - In an NTFS file ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: CHKDSK killed my OpenGL subsystem
    ... >> sanity of the file system. ... NTFS would prevent this from happening. ... As to "no FAT"; well, the information about which cluster comes next ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Windows XP Pro
    ... NTFS and is compatible with both. ... The young man who put the Windows XP Pro on her system ... >>> installed Windows XP Pro as a FAT 32 file system. ... >> - Open ONE copy of Internet Explorer. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage)