Jump to content

Help To Remove File size limit {4Gb} On fat32


mo3adz
 Share

Recommended Posts


NTFS is not faster and poses several more annoyances.

Its two main advantages are support for permissions and large file sizes.

Disadvantages include limited compatibility with other OSs and more complex structure which complicates recovery efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! NTFS is roughly ten times faster in read/write! Here's why.

NTFS and FAT32 are very similar in speed, but as the size of the disk increases, the gap widens. NTFS actually stores small files in the Master File Table (MFT), to increase performance. Rather than moving the heads to the beginning of the disk to read the MFT entry, and then to the middle or end of the disk to read the actual file, the heads simply move to the beginning of the disk, and read both at the same time. This can account for a considerable increase in speed when reading lots of small files. This allows the NTFS file system to read and write data faster than the FAT(FAT16/FAT32) file system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On smaller disks (under 200GB or so), FAT32 is indeed faster than NTFS due to the lack of security and journaling overhead. However, when the disk size increases (or there are 4 or more partitions on the disk), NTFS gets faster than FAT32, due to the fact that NTFS stores smaller files in the Master File Table (MFT) to increase performance. Instead of moving the read heads to the beginning of the disk to read an MFT entry, and then to the middle or end of the disk to read the actual file, the heads can quickly move to the beginning of the disk and read both entries at the same time. Larger files are still read the same, but most smaller files are read this way on NTFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Storing files in the MFT will eventually fragment it. Since the MFT is not ordinarily defragged (only a boot-time defrag will), then the fragmentation piles up and performance can be much worse than FAT32. But the MFT also serves as an index of sorts, so if you do a lot of heavy directory work, then NTFS will be the preferred choice. Ultimately, it comes down to your needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>But the MFT also serves as an index of sorts, so if you do a lot of heavy directory work, then NTFS will be the preferred choice

Try creating an NTFS folder with several million files in it and watch how fast that NTFS indexing works. FAT32 limits folders to 65xxx entries.

>due to the fact that NTFS stores smaller files in the Master File Table (MFT) to increase performance

So if your storing a lot of small files NTFS is good but if you're storing 1GB databases like I am, what then? I use FAT32 because my tests show that is faster every time. All you're saying is that NTFS is faster where it doesn't need to be.

>and journaling overhead

I've heard that journaling is good for keeping data correct during power outages and unplanned crashes. It must be vaporware because I haven't seen it work yet.

>FAT32 is faster by design:

It's faster by lack of overdesign. It's also faster because it disallows compression and hard links. No matter how fast NTFS could be, compression hobbles it to the 16-bit dark ages.

>its take a loot of time to convert it to NTFS

Consider yourself lucky. It takes a lot more time to convert to FAT32.

>NTFS is much better with XP. I personally haven't used FAT32 since Win98

XP runs without defect on FAT32. I convert everything I can to FAT32 to make virus scanning faster and easier. NTFS gives virii and spyware lots of juicy tidbits to protect themselves with.

>NTFS is better, faster, and safer. definently worth converting too.

Not exclusively better, not faster, and not safer unless you want safety for virii and spyware. Definitely worth converting is questionable too. This suggests lots of benefits. The OP is only going to gain a single observable benefit, the ability to store >4GB files. Does the list benefits include a higher charge from me to clean the bugs from his machine because NTFS makes cleaning substantially more difficult? I sure think so.

I only use NTFS where it is necessary to do so, and storing >4GB files is one of those things where it is necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proof NTFS is better and faster:

Take a USB flash drive.

Now, copy a 100MB or larger file to it and see how long it takes.

Now delete it and test the time it takes to delete it.

Now it's back to it's original state so convert it to NTFS via cmd.

Copy that same file to the flash drive and then delete it.

Tell me which is clearly faster and better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...