[Question] - NTFS vs FAT32

[jaclaz]

Fat32 first offered improved protection because it keeps a 2nd copy of the FAT and replaces the live version if it gets corrupted, that was 3/4th of the security trick I will admit.

Actually FAT16 also has a second partition table.

FAT32 has a second (spare) bootsector in sector #6, just like NTFS (depending on which version), has one in the middle (NT4.00) or at the end of the partition (Win2k/XP/2003).

jaclaz

[DonDamm]

As you can see there definitely lots of personal preferences out there! :^)

First, NTFS is a journaled file system and thus, takes the time ot journal or write information to the disk when there are changes made to a files. To help keep the performance hit down, small files are maintained directly in the MFT (mater file table) itself.

As noted this makes NTFS a much more robust system. This is because the system is more resistant to fragmentation (reports from Executive software aside...! - the truth is that fragmentation is nowhere near the problem they make it out to be), has security feature not available in FAT in the forms of file level permissions, and can be compressed and encrypted. Also, as noted, the chkdsk utility in NT/2K/XP - NTFS is a very thorough utility and fixes many common faults when they appear.

Now, interestingly, compression can sometimes speed up the performance of some types of files if the compression ratio is good.

I find that I prefer NTFS across the board. I use a 15-20 GB system disk for C: and the OS, while I keep data and the rest, including the paging file on D:, which I keep compressed along with any other volumes I add.

That being said, the poster asked the question in regards to speed only, so.... I would say that if it is only speed you are after that I would put the OS and installed programs on a 10-15 GB C: drive and all the rest including the page file on a 25-30GB D: drive all formatted as FAT32. You could make C: NTFS, and Keep D: FAT32. That would probably be the fastest.....technically.

However, I'm almost certain that if I were to setup a machine properly for you either way, I'll wager you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. If you really need speed consider using an scsi controller and 10K or even a 15K rpm harddisk like one of the Barracudas from Seagate. I guarantee you'll be able to see the difference then!! You can also tweak your system by removing most of the menu delay which defaults to 400 millisecs (almost half a second!!) and not using all the eye candy (set the visuals for performance) etc, turn off unnecessary services a la Black Viper, turn off unneeded startup services, and for heaven's sake do not install any Norton stuff, or deinstall it if you have it. You'll see that your machine will feel very much more snappy which ever file format you choose.

As for recovery, FAT is accessible by DOS floppies and such, but really, with BartPE Tool and so many others out there, this really isn't much of an argument anymore. I've recovered both NTFS and DOS partitions and lost files, replaced the first 512KB with a copy from the middle of disk with a disk editor to retrieve a partition which disappeared, etc etc. If you have the right tools then either of the formats can be recovered from. I prefer NTFS, but then I like it. FAT can't be permissioned the same way nor encrypted by the OS, but I don't think that's the concern here.

If it's any consolation, Fred Langa still runs his non OS partitions on FAT!!! He likes it.

Whatever you decide, just make sure you have the tools you need to work with it and make back ups (and test them) so you don't screw yourself if the disk fails. That's what's really important. :^) Good luck with it.

[RJARRRPCGP]

Fat32 first offered improved protection because it keeps a 2nd copy of the FAT and replaces the live version if it gets corrupted, that was 3/4th of the security trick I will admit.

Actually FAT16 also has a second partition table.

FAT32 has a second (spare) bootsector in sector #6, just like NTFS (depending on which version), has one in the middle (NT4.00) or at the end of the partition (Win2k/XP/2003).

jaclaz

NT4 don't support FAT32!

Actually, you can have a FAT32 partition bigger than 32 GB is you use a third perty partitioning utility...

Anybody that uses FAT on anything larger than 20gigs is a sick little monkey that doesn't understand the differences between FAT and NTFS (or they just need cross OS readability which is forgivable). Windows didn't set the limit to push an agenda, they did it for sanity.

Actually, I have always been installing Windows 2000 and Windows XP on a FAT32 partition, but then convert it to NTFS, because that's my own workaround I have for preventing Windows from dorking around with the drive letters!

If you install it to a NTFS partition, then it's known to dork around with the drive letters.

It's known to make drive C become drive D and drive D drive C or it assigns a random drive letter, for example, it may make my primary master HDD drive F!

By installing on to a FAT32 partition and then convert it later after the Windows installation has been complete by typing

convert c: /fs:ntfs

your able to make sure that the primary master HDD is drive C.

When you install Windows on to a FAT32 partition, the primary master HDD always is drive C.

Windows won't change any drive letters when you run the

convert

command.

Edited March 3, 2006 by RJARRRPCGP

[LLXX]

I've heard that FAT is faster on small drives (let's say a 5gigs or less) and NTFS is faster on larger drives (more than 5gigs). But I've never benchmarked it myself to prove it.

I've tried it, and it seems FAT32 is faster on almost any size of drive, but with larger drives the difference decreases. I timed the copying of 512Mb from memory onto a file on two identical 120Gb hard drives, one formatted with FAT32 and the other with NTFS. The difference between FAT32 and NTFS was approximately 1.5 seconds.

Don't forget tho obvious features of NTFS being, there's more than JUST security & large disk sizes

1. viruses can no longer (easily) destroy your index table

2. file on NTFS don't get corrupt (HD failure is a given)

3. no more "lost file chains"

4. reliable file compression on the OS level

5. less wasted space on file blocks (NTFS can use smaller file blocks that FAT)

1. Overwritten MFT = loss of all your small files, as they are stored directly in the file table itself. Overwritten FAT = no loss of file data since all file data are stored in the data area.

2. Neither do files on FAT32.

3. True, but then again, NTFS has its own set of problems with corruption.

4. True. Can't argue with that.

5. Misconception. You're confusing FAT32 with FAT16. FAT32 supports 2^32 clusters, which means up to two terabytes at only 512 bytes per cluster. As opposed to FAT16, which has an inherent 2Gb limitation (65536 clusters * 32768 bytes/cluster)

Actually FAT16 also has a second partition table.

"Partition table"??? That is independent of the filesystem... and there is only one, in the MBR at the very first sector of the disk. If you meant a second FAT, that has been a feature ever since FAT12.

NTFS will do nothing to keep you safe from Viruses, Worms, Trojans, Adware, Spyware, hackers or Rootkits.

In fact, it provides more places for malware to hide - see http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Alt...ta_Streams.html

U should defrag at least once a week anyway. That's just good common sence, and good Maintenance too.

It depends on how much disk activity you produce. The more, the more frequent you should defrag. Also, the more frequently you defrag, the less stress is placed on the drive when you do defrag, as with files being already contiguous the hard drive has to move the heads less, and excessive seeks is what wears out the drive quickly. Think of defragging as being like physical exercise - the more frequently you do it, the better condition your body will be in, and the less stress it places on your body if you're already fit. However, defragging too frequently is a waste of time as the files have not fragmented yet.

I only defrag once a year and I still don't see a difference in speed.

Because you use NTFS, which is more insensitive to fragmentation than FAT, you'll see less of a difference

Actually, you can have a FAT32 partition bigger than 32 GB if you use a third party partitioning utility.

There's nothing in FAT32 that prohibits you from creating partitions bigger than 32 GB!

The 32 GB partition limitation in Windows XP Setup is arbitrary! That's because Microsoft want everybody to use NTFS.

Correct. FAT32 partitions can be up to 2 Terabytes in size.

[Daemonforce]

NTFS partitions stop somewhere but I don't believe it's based on the version(NT/2K/XP/LH...). Isn't it some unrealistic number like 16 exabytes? o.O

Where are we going to need to make the jump into 64-Bit hardware?

[nmX.Memnoch]

Actually, I have always been installing Windows 2000 and Windows XP on a FAT32 partition, but then convert it to NTFS, because that's my own workaround I have for preventing Windows from dorking around with the drive letters!

You're dorking around with directory and file security when doing it this way. Windows XP applies different security permissions when installed on FAT32 than it does when installed on NTFS. Installing straight to NTFS is much more secure. It also does not fix the security permissions when you run the convert.

If you install it to a NTFS partition, then it's known to dork around with the drive letters.

It's known to make drive C become drive D and drive D drive C or it assigns a random drive letter, for example, it may make my primary master HDD drive F!

I've been doing NT based OS installs for years...from 3.51 on...and I've never, ever, had it do this. That really doesn't make any sense at all since the drive letters get assigned before you tell it what file system you want to use. You can't even format it until the partition has been created and a driver letter has been assigned.

However, sometimes when you create a partition after it's already assigned the CD/DVD drive a letter it'll put the CD/DVD drive in the middle (Drive/Partition 1 will be C:, CD/DVD will be D: Drive/Partition 2 will be E:). But there's a simple workaround for that. Start install and create all of your partitions. When you notice that the drive letter is messed up, F3 out of the install and restart it. This will fix the drive letter ordering because the partitions where already created before Setup was started. Note that it usually only does this when you have to press F6 to install the drive controller drivers because it's already reserved C: for your primary drive but it can't see anything else so it just assigns the optical drive to D:.

I've heard that FAT is faster on small drives (let's say a 5gigs or less) and NTFS is faster on larger drives (more than 5gigs). But I've never benchmarked it myself to prove it.

I've tried it, and it seems FAT32 is faster on almost any size of drive, but with larger drives the difference decreases. I timed the copying of 512Mb from memory onto a file on two identical 120Gb hard drives, one formatted with FAT32 and the other with NTFS. The difference between FAT32 and NTFS was approximately 1.5 seconds.

1.5 seconds is well within the margin of error. File copies aren't an exact science. The same file may take 3 seconds longer the next time you copy it...or it may happen 5 seconds faster.

NTFS partitions stop somewhere but I don't believe it's based on the version(NT/2K/XP/LH...). Isn't it some unrealistic number like 16 exabytes? o.O

Yes, it supposedly supports a 16 exabyte file on a 16 exabyte volume. Of course, this hasn't been proven since we aren't anywhere close to being able to create files or volumes of that size yet.

[jaclaz]

NT4 don't support FAT32!

Of course not!

Where did I say that?

Fat32 first offered improved protection because it keeps a 2nd copy of the FAT and replaces the live version if it gets corrupted, that was 3/4th of the security trick I will admit.

Actually FAT16 also has a second partition table.

FAT32 has a second (spare) bootsector in sector #6, just like NTFS (depending on which version), has one in the middle (NT4.00) or at the end of the partition (Win2k/XP/2003).

What I wrote was that BOTH FAT16 and FAT32 have TWO copies of the FAT.

FAT32 has the new feature of a second copy if the bootrsector in sector #6

FAT16 has NO spare copy of the bootsector.

The NTFS version called 1.0 or 1.1, i.e. the one used up to Windows NT 4.00, for NT 3.1 and 3.5, has a spare bootsector in the MIDDLE of the partition.

The NTFS version called 1.2, 3.0, 3.1, 4.0 or 5.0, i.e the one used by Windos NT 4.00 and later modified in 2000/XP/Server 2003, has a spare bootsector at the END of the partition.

Read these:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/Articl...5515/25515.html

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=153973

http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/MSWIN41.htm

The Boot Record itself:

Microsoft's MSWIN4.1 Boot Record is actually 3 sectors long, and is found at Logical Sectors 0 through 2 for any volume, or Absolute Sectors 63 through 65 of a drive having only a single FAT32 partition, or when that partition is the very first one on your Drive. It may obviously reside elsewhere if your HDD is partitioned for multi-OS use. (Note: There's also a "Backup Copy" of the MSWIN4.1 Boot Record which resides at Logical Sectors 6 through 8 for any volume; which would be Absolute Sectors 69 through 71, in the case of the first or only FAT32 partition on a drive.)

jaclaz

[Viscon]

Windows 2000 and Windows XP can't create a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB.

i don't think so.

my fat32 partition is larger than 40GB

see attachment

[nmX.Memnoch]

See Knowledge Base Articles:

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=184006

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314463

You can format a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB with Windows 2000/XP, but you can not create a partition larger than 32GB with Windows 2000/XP. Also note that you can not format FAT32 partitions larger than 32GB during install.

You cannot format a volume larger than 32 GB in size using the FAT32 file system in Windows 2000. The Windows 2000 FastFAT driver can mount and support volumes larger than 32 GB that use the FAT32 file system (subject to the other limits), but you cannot create one using the Format tool. This behavior is by design. If you need to create a volume larger than 32 GB, use the NTFS file system instead.

You cannot format a volume larger than 32 gigabytes (GB) in size using the FAT32 file system during the Windows XP installation process. Windows XP can mount and support FAT32 volumes larger than 32 GB (subject to the other limits), but you cannot create a FAT32 volume larger than 32 GB by using the Format tool during Setup. If you need to format a volume that is larger than 32 GB, use the NTFS file system to format it. Another option is to start from a Microsoft Windows 98 or Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (Me) Startup disk and use the Format tool included on the disk.

[Daemonforce]

That's right. Since when has it been a problem? o.O

I had my 80GB Maxtor formatted as one big FAT32 partition for the past two years.

[Andromeda43]

Where DO some of yous guys get your information? Out of a Cracker Jacks box?

Oh the pain, with all the bull crap flying around ......

I have a beautiful Maxtor 160 gig SATA hard drive split into two partitions,

10 gig for C: and the rest for D:.

Nothing could ever be more stable or easier to get into if some file needs to be changed, renamed or just plain deleted. And it can all be done from the most simple DOS boot disk. Windows 98 or Win-ME,,,,makes no diff.

The whole disk was formatted with my Windows ME boot floppy and it's every bit in FAT-32.

I wouldnt' have an NTFS partition in my house or on my computer for love nor money. Never have and never will. Every time I have to replace a HD for one of my Home Computer customers, it gets formatted in exactly the same way as I've outlines above.

Yous guys that have some kind of love affair going with NTFS, keep right on using it if that's what yanks yor crank, but don't try to put your own personal preferences off on the general public as something Gospel. People that just don't know the difference.

NT,,,,It's a business operating system NOT a home operating system....never was and never will be.

But as for the OS we've had shoved up our xxxxx by Microsoft, it (XP) runs like a scalded dog on a FAT-32 formatted hard drive.

People all over the world are doing it "MY WAY" and they just love it. It's fast, efficient and so easy to work with when there's a problem on the ol' HD.

Y'all have a great weekend now, y'hear?

Andromeda43

[Viscon]

good thinking Andromeda43.

it's a matter of individual preferences plus knowledge how to deal with NTFS.

i've never seen any reason to use NTFS on my home computer, where i do website job, graphic design, photo and video editing, and some gaming.

if i had to administer network in some office, no doubt i would use NTFS though.

remember one of my friends got mad about NTFS for some reason; he had had nothing but troubles ever since. simply couldn't deal with this file system.

i had to come over, wipe his hdd entirely with symantec gdisk, partition, format and install xp pro on fat32.

no problems so far.

[Daemonforce]

Your friend needs to do a low-level format before XP will accept an NTFS partition for a system boot.

I used to use FAT32 all the time until I did a low level format. Then I could use NTFS and I find it useful as a file system for the operating system. I had my data drives stick with FAT32 for the past 4 years that I've had a computer. Until last year I finally got a DVD drive and there was a sudden need for NTFS(I couldn't make DVD sized ISOs, large files, very large videos).

Everything needs to get pushed forward. The faster everything moves away from FAT, the happier I'll be.

[jaclaz]

Your friend needs to do a low-level format before XP will accept an NTFS partition for a system boot.

NO, it is not needed.

By the way low-level format does not exist anymore, at least on IDE/SATA drives.

The thing that goes near (but it is NOT a low-level format) is a disk wipe, but it is NOT needed.

jaclaz

[HyperHacker]

NTFS is nearly if not equally as fast as FAT32, much more resistant to corruption and fragmentation, has encryption and compression built in, and supports larger volumes and files (FAT32's file limit is a puny 4GB). There are plenty of tools that allow you to recover files on NTFS from within Windows, Linux or DOS. The only real reason to use FAT32 is if you need compatibility with systems that don't support NTFS.