dcsimg
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: NTFS vs FAT32

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    153
    The tests I've run with NTFS have shown a vast increase in file-system readability, especially for directories with thousands of files and directories with a few enourmous (larger than 500 megs) files. This is due to the steamlined nature in which the NTFS format structures the tree/files for reading and processing. However it should be noted that faster drives gain a clear speed advantage from NTFS than slower drives. For example, a 5200RPM drive would only gain a tiny advantage from NTFS due to the format overhead. But a 7500 and 10000RPM drive would gain a signifigant advantage from NTFS.

    http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/index3.html

    This is similar to comparing ext3 and ReiserFS. Reiser has the clear advantage if your harddrive is up to spec.

    And as rider stated above, reading NTFS formats has been in the linux kernel since 2.2 (or earlier?) and therefore will easily be recognized and usable in your linux partition. Writing to the NTFS partition, however, is a different story as it requires a bit of work due to the proprietary nature of NTFS.

    NTFS Writing projects:

    http://www.jankratochvil.net/project/captive/
    http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/status.html
    \"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.\"
    - Charles Darwin

  2. #12
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190
    My observations are similar. With very large files and folders NTFS seems to have an advantage. Conversely, with small items, FAT has a slight advantage.

    Hardware is the factor that has the greatest influence on performance.


  3. #13
    AFLAAACKKK!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,066
    NTFS is far better then FAT32 IMHO... Not only for data security purposes like previously stated, but also the fact that it utilizes your hard drive space better and more efficiently, allowing you to save more data then FAT32...
    I am the uber duck!!1
    Proxy Tools

  4. #14
    The Doctor Und3ertak3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,743
    To add to the NTFS camp..

    With NTFS there is a lower chance of file corruption (this is regarding system files becoming damaged either in a bad shutdown) than FAT 32,

    Also having had a large number of systems cross my bench over the last 18 months or more that were shipped whith XP on a FAT32 filesystem.. There is a performance lift when the system is converted to NTFS.. and noticable..

    As for dual booting linux.. I have never run linux under a NTFS or FAT32 filesystem.. I am not proficient enough to comment on performance issues here.. .. When I have dual Booted Linux with WinXP, Linux has had its own partitions to install into, WinXP was preinstalled wiith NTFS, RH/SUSE/Mandrake installed on their own partitions (not all at once) the boot times seemed no different to when they were sole installs..

    The only reason to have a FAT32 partition is to install Win9x.. anbd that is that.. mind there are tools to allow Win9x to recognise NTFS..dont know if anyone has reliably succeded in running 9x on the NTFS..
    "Consumer technology now exceeds the average persons ability to comprehend how to use it..give up hope of them being able to understand how it works." - Me http://www.cybercrypt.co.nr

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •