Printable View
Hi
I did a quick search and didnt found anything like this so i am posting it. Forgive if it has been posted before.
I was wondering which of the file system is better for getting better performance out of the system. I know that secondary memory or the HDD is used a lot by the OS and file system can help in improving performance. Can anyone tell which is better.
I would also like to know that since i have a slow processor 933Mhz P3 on FAT32, will changing to NTFS be better .
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...onvertfat.mspx
NTFS is better in MHO. for security reasons and just general stability.
Hi Mystery Man, Looking at this chart I think processor has got nothing to do with the file system being used on your HDD.
and NTFS is way better than FAT32. That chart will tell you most of the things you need to know about NTFS and FAT32.
cheers!!
EDIT: NTFS has built in security as Texan said. How could I forget that!!!:rolleyes:
- :S:
Singh, you posted the same link twice
That was intentional coz thats the first link came up for googling "ntfs vs fat32". :DQuote:
Singh, you posted the same link twice
Quote:
Originally posted here by :Singh:
and NTFS is way better than FAT32. That chart will tell you most of the things you need to know about NTFS and FAT32.
Well, this is not really true as I stated many times. NTFS is no good for dual booting, FAT & FAT32 is file system of choice and it requires less disk space.
NTFS, is for file and folder level security, and is the system file of choice in this case.
So everything has a thing that it is really good at and weak at.
0.02$
Cheers
What i am concerned about is that can NTFS improve the disk read/write time and thus increase the effective speed apart from the bus speed and thereby improve the system performance.
I think the dual booting you are talking about is between Win 9x and xp. I think it has no effect on the dualboting with linux. If it does then please tell how.
Can an NTFS file system win xp read from a FAT32 hdd seperately attached to the system?
Yes.. Yes it can ;) As long as the drive with FAT32 is mounted as a SLAVE..Quote:
Can an NTFS file system win xp read from a FAT32 hdd seperately attached to the system?
front2back
I don't think that NTFS partition will load linux boot sector! If you want an NTFS file system create a saparated partition for your windows! and keep the rest as FAT32!Quote:
Originally posted here by Mystery Man
I think the dual booting you are talking about is between Win 9x and xp. I think it has no effect on the dualboting with linux. If it does then please tell how.
From my own experience, NTFS will no way improve you disk read write speed or that efficieny, but yeah it recommended for better security.You can have C: partition of windows as NTFS and rest as FAT32, then you will know if there is any difference for yourself...
And as far as dual boot with linux is concerned, you will have no problem whatsoever, nearly every current release of linux is automatically able to recognize and mount NTFS (atleast my SUSE 9.1 can do this with no problem...
Hope it helps
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
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.
:)
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...
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..