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

[mo3adz]

i download HMBM and i have Fat32 system and the install file larger than 4 gb

Help guysss

Edited October 16, 2006 by mo3adz

[Tarun]

Start > Run > cmd

convert.exe C: /fs:ntfs

You'll convert your drive to NTFS, it's better, safer, faster, and really is what you should be running with Windows XP.

[Synapse]

FAT32 can't go over 4gigs. http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

as Tarun said, NTFS is better, faster, and safer. definently worth converting too.

[djc]

NTFS is better than FAT32 convert your drive to NTFS.

Edited October 17, 2006 by djc

[LLXX]

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.

[Tarun]

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.

[nitroshift]

I second what the others have said: NTFS is much better with XP. I personally haven't used FAT32 since Win98, and that was ages ago, before Win2k came on the market.

[mo3adz]

Thx alooot guys nitroshift , Tarun , Bi0haZarD , djc , LLXX For helping

:D its take a loot of time to convert it to NTFS

[allen2]

FAT32 is faster by design: no need to create entries for rights, audit when storing or reading data. When tweaked NTFS can be almost as fast.

[nitroshift]

Thx alooot guys nitroshift , Tarun , Bi0haZarD , djc , LLXX For helping

You're welcome!

[cluberti]

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.

[Aegis]

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.

[LLXX]

I've seen (and heard!) a badly fragmented NTFS drive... very slow and sounds like a grinder. Not to mention NTFS performs more read/write activity than FAT32.

[severach]

>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.

[Tarun]

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.