Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
mo3adz

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

Recommended Posts

Ok, I think we have established they both have there own unique advantages. which are irrelevant to mo3adz question.

Either converting the partition to NTFS

or

spliting the partition into FAT32 and NTFS

Share this post


Link to post
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.

That'll shorten the life of that drive quite a bit, NTFS performs more writes (and reads) than FAT32 and flash memory already has a significantly shorter lifespan than other magnetic storage.

FAT32 - simple file system with little features, but works fine for basic file storage.

NTFS - complex file system with many features, useful for multiuser/server environments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tarun

I second LLXX on this.

Formatting and using a USB stick as NTFS will DEFINITELY shorten it's lifetime.

Though manufacturer's are not saying it too loud ;) , flash memory has a FINITE number of write cycles, at the moment that is estimated around 100,000 cycles.

This means that the drive will normally last "forever" in normal use, but NTFS is a semi-journaled filesystem that EVERY TIME it reads a file actually WRITES something to the disk (access date and time, etc.).

Though most (but not all) controller chip manufacturers do adopt a technique called "wear-leveling" that in simple words is a method to re-map the drive so that on average all sectors are written the same number of time, the number of write cycles in a NTFS filesystem is so high that a stick can be "burned" in a matter of days or weeks of intensive use.

This has already happened, check the "winodws booting from XP" thread on the 911CD board:

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=14181

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...5533;entry97519

The ONLY "safe" way to use NTFS on ANY flash based device under XP is to use EWF, a component from Windows Embedded that limits to the minimum the number of write cycles.

There is a nice EWF tutorial by Sfiorito, who is also a member of MSFN, here:

http://osf1.gmu.edu/~sfiorito/eXPinstall.htm

Additionally, you may want to disable timestamping, though this is a Registry Tweak that applies to ALL NTFS volumes, not only to the stick.

Of course, as long as it "YOUR" stick, you are perfectly free to "fry" it in the shortest time you can, but to actually suggest formatting a USB stick as NTFS, without a BIG WARNING about the side effect on it's lifetime is IMHO at least inappropriate.

jaclaz

P.S.: NTFS is undoubtedly a BETTER and SAFER filesystem, but, as said, not necessarily faster, see this comparison table:

http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try it, and then get back to me.

How come there are no links to prove what you're saying about converting to NTFS is bad? Hm?

Did you guys not fully read the test? Didn't say to keep it as NTFS nor did I specify size. Why? Because it is a test and it's a user's choice if they want FAT or NTFS.

My 5GB pocket hard drive is converted to NTFS and works far better using NTFS, same with the 256MB stick I have.

You should also read about Choosing between NTFS, FAT and FAT32. "Recommended minimum volume size is approximately 10 megabytes (MB)." Note it says a minimum of 10 MB? Therefore, no warning is needed as most USB drives are 128MB+ now-a-days. Tyvm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well umm...a pocket hard drive's not exactly flash-based, is it ;)?
and a 5Gb one at that. Flash drives come in sizes that are powers of 2 - 256M,512M,1G,2G,4G...

Of course formatting a small magnetic hard drive as NTFS isn't going to shorten its lifespan much, since it's much the same as a standard desktop drive.

Brief lesson on terminology:

USB drive - could be magnetic or flash or any other storage device

USB stick - flash

USB disk - definitely magnetic or optical (CD-ROM?)

thumb drive, pen drive, stick drive, U fish, U rod (slang Chinese terms), etc. - flash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, it is quite easy to see what is which....

[bEGIN SARCASM]

Open up your home stereo loudspeaker, it should consist of two or three speakers.

Identify the woofer (the biggest one).

Now, try sticking your drive to the back of the woofer.

If it stays attached, it is a magnetic disk, and you will have probably lost all your data, besides the mess you have made with the loudspeaker.

If it does not, it is a Flash based one.

[END SARCASM]

:P

How come there are no links to prove what you're saying about converting to NTFS is bad?

Maybe you will be interested in these:

http://deadline.3x.ro/adsense/ntfs_vs_fat32.html

http://www.comp.ro/QWFAT32_NTFS.htm

http://www.spcug.org/reviews/bl0401.htm

There is no "good" or "bad", as much as there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution.

On certain setups and for certain scopes, FAT is better than NTFS, on some other ones, NTFS is better.

It's up to the user choose which one to use.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All user pages. How about something official?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All user pages. How about something official?

I don't get it, do you expect to find something written by the good Microsoft guys (who invented NTFS as a better filesystem than FAT16/32) saying that NTFS is worse?

Maybe there is, but you can go and search for it yourself, just remember that those guys are the same ones that said:

1) That Internet Explorer is part of Windows and CANNOT be taken off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

2) That XP was NOT bootable from a USB Mass Storage device.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/usb-boot.mspx

and some "users" proved them wrong:

1) After all IE CAN be taken off...

http://www.litepc.com/

http://www.vorck.com/remove-ie.html

http://www.nliteos.com/

2) And XP CAN boot from USB....

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=14181

So, maybe, the problem with information is not WHERE it comes from, but rather IF it is accurate, an the only real judge is the single user for it's specific purposes.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never convince the Microsoft believers

that all they have been told by Microsoft is not

necessarily true or good or in their best interest.

They have grown up with Microsoft and hold their

knowledge base as a bible or banner outlining

the proper way to live. Their belief that a company

as large as Microsoft can't possibly be wrong puts

them in the same category as the ENRON ahareholders

that were shafted hard.

If they want to use NTFS, or leave every service running

or upgrade to Vista just because Microsoft says that's

the PROPER way, then let them follow along like good

little sheeple. The truth will surface soon enough and

they will either learn by their mistakes or continue into

oblivion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the "NTFS on flash is BAD" topic, here is an interesting article in which wear-leveling algorithms are explained :

http://www.mil-embedded.com/articles/authors/spanjer/

and an "official" article:

http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServe...3.mspx?mfr=true

Note

• Although NTFS is the preferred file system for hard disks, NTFS cannot be used on removable media. Instead, Windows Server 2003 uses FAT12 for formatting floppy disks, and FAT32 for formatting flash media and DVD-RAM discs.

Imation:

http://www.imation.com/didyouknow/technolo...ke_it_with.html

Puts the Write cycles at "between 10,000 and 100,000" which is not really an "exact figure".

See also this:

http://ask-leo.com/can_a_usb_thumbdrive_wear_out.html

As said, it is possible in certain conditions and with certain media to burn the flash memory in a matter of days or weeks, so you should know what you are doing before doing it.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its two main advantages are support for permissions and large file sizes.

There are more, as stated in another post, on large drives, NTFS is faster. If you disable the "last accessed" feature in windows, NTFS gets an minor boost.

NTFS is transactional based, giving much better reliability, ever noticed you don't get "lost chains" like you use to when you run CHKDSK.

NTFS is more efficient, giving you more free space on the same drive. In FAT32, as your drive gets larger, it's split into larger blocks, easily 16k or 32k, were as NTFS is 4k or 8k. What this means is, every file takes an entire block, if the file is 17k on a 32k setup, it's using 32k. At least on NTFS it would take 20k or 24k. Multiply this by hundreds of thousands of files and it adds up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>ever noticed you don't get "lost chains" like you use to when you run CHKDSK.

I do notice that I get pieces of folders that disappear when the indicies go corrupt and I also get files that can't be deleted and CHKDSK won't fix them. I've had to destroy directory entries in diskedit to get CHKDSK to get off it's lazy butt and fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NTFS is transactional based, giving much better reliability, ever noticed you don't get "lost chains" like you use to when you run CHKDSK.
Also means the critical write times are longer and it's easier to mess something up if the power goes off halfway through a write. I don't know about you, but I've never had any problems with FAT32 besides the usual incorrect free space count and occasional partial blocks of clusters that were the result of a bad shutdown.
NTFS is more efficient, giving you more free space on the same drive. In FAT32, as your drive gets larger, it's split into larger blocks, easily 16k or 32k, were as NTFS is 4k or 8k. What this means is, every file takes an entire block, if the file is 17k on a 32k setup, it's using 32k. At least on NTFS it would take 20k or 24k. Multiply this by hundreds of thousands of files and it adds up.
It is possible to adjust the cluster size of FAT32 as well. 512-byte clusters can be used for drives up to 2 terabytes in size (2^9 * 2^32 = 2^41), if the average size of your files is that small. WinXP doesn't seem to like that for some reason though... maybe another artificial limitation like the format not wanting to make FAT32 partn's over 32Gb. Edited by LLXX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...