windows filing system

I know that the Win 98 & back versions of windows all have a wierd filing system, where they scatter bits of the file all over the hd, and link them back to file (or so i've been told). I did some research before posting and all the official websites i've been to have said windows switched over to a FAT32 filing system for win2k and after (or so M$ said). What I want to know, is the supposedly new filing system more efficient (as in it actually stores the entire file together on the hdd), or is it the same? Is it even possible now to fix this because of the nature of hdds?

I already searched google for this, and i couldn't find anything other than vague answers. Of course, I'm just a newbie, so everyone but me could know the answer. I also want to know if Linux had this inefficiency in the past or stil does.

thanx for your time, guys! flame me for stupidity if you need to! :)

Fat32 is better than FAT 16 because it is better designed fo the large disks that are sold nowadays. As far as I know, it's not any better at handling fragmentation. You'll still have to defragment your hard drives occasionally. The only thing it's better at is handling the larger disks.

hmmm......typical M$ laziness. I stil want to know if linux has this problem.

What you're talking about is File Fragmentation. Every Windows-based file system has a certain amount of fragmentation (files split up across the drive), which is why there are defragmentation programs like Defrag, Diskeeper and SpeedDisk. The differences between FAT, FAT32 and NTFS have to do with how many bits is used to store data on the computer. Various sites have tables describing the differences in each. If you search for a string (such as FAT +FAT32 +NTFS +comparison, you should get some hits.

AJ

thanx. I thought file fragmentation was just the gradual disssasociating of files with their paths. OH wait..........that's sort of what it is.

/me jumps out third-story window to punish himself.

but i still want to know if linux or unix file systems have that problem. I haven't noticed any defrag proggies in mandrake, but of course, i just got a new distro, and haven't explored much yet. Also, I'm stil a newbie just emerging from the casual cpu usage scene.

Quote:

---

I also want to know if Linux had this inefficiency in the past or stil does.

---

The EXT2 filesystem in which Linux uses has very minimal fragmentation. You can read why here:
Resources and gives info you might like. It even shows where you can get an EXT2 defragger :)

thanx alittlenumb.

No problemo :)

Well fat32 was in win98 and later actually and although win2k supports it it is preferable to use ntfs5 which is more secure and can hold more data etc (16 exabytes) Fat32 is alot better than fat16 as the storage area for each piece of data is 32 bits instead of 16 bits. it also supports larger partition sizes and hdd sizes. With fat it stores data in what is referred to as a linked list where tha data is placed arbitrarily across the sectors of the disk and ponters for a table (file allocation table) are used to find the data. With ntfs it uses b-tree directory storage which is alot more efficient in the way it places data and also provides local security, transaction logging for redundancy and hot fixing. The other main issue for preferences betwenn fat16 and fat32 is that with fat16 you actually lose storage space from your hdd depending on the size of your partitions, without getting too techie, if you use fat16 for a partition size of 2gb which is also the maximum you can use, sector sizes (cluster sizes) change and if you store a file that is lower than the size of a cluster you lose the rest of the space available in the cluster) which doesnt happen with fat32 or ntfs. if you use fat16 then keep you partition size below 500 mb, anything above that then use fat32 or ntfs.
Hope this helps ?

thnx, geepod

/me shakes head and says to self "you're such a newb"

Some file system related links.
http://www.mega-tokyo.com/os/os-faq-fs.html
http://www.waterwheel.com/Guides/har...ile_sytems.htm

Don’t forget about vfat and fat12

vfat and fat12? i take it those are really outdated (fat12 at least)

There extremely out dated I was j/k
As far as the best filing system I would put them in this order
1. EXT2
2. ntfs <= a close second
3. Fat32

hmmmm, yes. I have a buddy w/ a machine that has a 1.1 ghz duron, 384 ram, 20 gb 5400 rpm hdd, and another machine w/ duron 750 mhz, 92 mb ram, 20 gb 5400 rpm hdd. The first one has win98, the second win2k (which runs ntfs, if i am not decieved). The win2k machine far outperforms the second in all the file-related tasks: opening folders, running small progs off the hdd, even the os booting up (of course, the boot is probly cuz it's a more advanced operating system, you might say, but remember the gap in stats). Needless to say, win2k is going on his win98 system next weekend! :)

if you want to get really archaic then there was also a fat8 which was used on the old tapes i believe on mainframes and minis although i dont know to much about this ! basically if u r using a ms os then go for fat32 or ntfs (if it is nt based etc) or if *nix then ext2 which is great ! i wonder how many people out there are still using fat16 unaware that they have lost or are losing loads of storage space ?
Also interestingly there is the directory entries issue as well where if you name a file with a long filename regardless of the size of your partition if you save that file in the root then you wont be able to store anything else

example

?????????.txt where ??????? is equal to 255 characters ! the fat system takes up a directory entry for each 13 characters + one and in fat there is only 512 dir entries therefore if you give a file a long name and save it in your root and that file is only a k in size and you have a gb of free space it means nish as you cant save anything else ! this is also true for floppy disks where i think there is 200 and somit dir entries ( not sure)

Strange stuff man !