Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NTFS speed

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 4:15:28 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Hi

I have a large folder - about 18000 files with long file names.

On my old machine, WIN ME FAT32, explorer could open this folder in a few
seconds. On my new much faster XP machine, NTFS, it takes about 2 minutes
to open the folder.

Is there something I can do to speed this up (I have done a defrag).

Brent

More about : ntfs speed

Anonymous
November 6, 2004 4:15:29 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

It shouldn't take "seconds" on either type of file system. You do not give
your system specs, so there is not much to go on. What are your system
specs, and what types of files are in the folder?

Bobby

"Brent Beach" <brent_beach@telus.net> wrote in message
news:QAVid.55731$VA5.32233@clgrps13...
> Hi
>
> I have a large folder - about 18000 files with long file names.
>
> On my old machine, WIN ME FAT32, explorer could open this folder in a few
> seconds. On my new much faster XP machine, NTFS, it takes about 2 minutes
> to open the folder.
>
> Is there something I can do to speed this up (I have done a defrag).
>
> Brent
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 4:15:30 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Brent Beach wrote
> I have a large folder - about 18000 files with long file names.
>
> On my old machine, WIN ME FAT32, explorer could open this folder in
> a few seconds. On my new much faster XP machine, NTFS, it takes
> about 2 minutes to open the folder.
>
> Is there something I can do to speed this up (I have done a defrag).

NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> It shouldn't take "seconds" on either type of file system. You do
> not give your system specs, so there is not much to go on. What are
> your system specs, and what types of files are in the folder?

If they are pictures/video files - may be some issues with Windows XP and
the way it treats these files.

Please inform us of the type of files.

--
<- Shenan ->
--
The information is provided "as is", it is suggested you research for
yourself before you take any advice - you are the one ultimately
responsible for your actions/problems/solutions. Know what you are
getting into before you jump in with both feet.
Related resources
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:58:07 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Hi

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Brent Beach wrote
>
>>I have a large folder - about 18000 files with long file names.
>>
>>On my old machine, WIN ME FAT32, explorer could open this folder in
>>a few seconds. On my new much faster XP machine, NTFS, it takes
>>about 2 minutes to open the folder.
>>
>>Is there something I can do to speed this up (I have done a defrag).
>
>
> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>
>>It shouldn't take "seconds" on either type of file system. You do
>>not give your system specs, so there is not much to go on. What are
>>your system specs, and what types of files are in the folder?
>
>
> If they are pictures/video files - may be some issues with Windows XP and
> the way it treats these files.

The ME machine is 667MHz, 5 years old. The XP is 2GHz Toshiba, 1 year old.
The files are all JPGs, many with long file names. In fact, the directory
just filled up on the ME machine (cannot add more files) with just under
19,000 files.

On the ME machine it takes less than 3 seconds to open the directory. On
the XP machine it takes about 2 minutes.

Brent
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:58:08 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

NTFS is slower than FAT32, but i wouldnt expect such a large performance
drop, i agree it could be the way XP looks at the folder... but as new as
your PC is what speed is the drive if your old one was 7400RPM and new one is
a budget 5400RPM drive that can make a difference. i would go to
pcpitstop.com and test your drive speeds.

Alex

"Brent Beach" wrote:

> Hi
>
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
> > Brent Beach wrote
> >
> >>I have a large folder - about 18000 files with long file names.
> >>
> >>On my old machine, WIN ME FAT32, explorer could open this folder in
> >>a few seconds. On my new much faster XP machine, NTFS, it takes
> >>about 2 minutes to open the folder.
> >>
> >>Is there something I can do to speed this up (I have done a defrag).
> >
> >
> > NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> >
> >>It shouldn't take "seconds" on either type of file system. You do
> >>not give your system specs, so there is not much to go on. What are
> >>your system specs, and what types of files are in the folder?
> >
> >
> > If they are pictures/video files - may be some issues with Windows XP and
> > the way it treats these files.
>
> The ME machine is 667MHz, 5 years old. The XP is 2GHz Toshiba, 1 year old.
> The files are all JPGs, many with long file names. In fact, the directory
> just filled up on the ME machine (cannot add more files) with just under
> 19,000 files.
>
> On the ME machine it takes less than 3 seconds to open the directory. On
> the XP machine it takes about 2 minutes.
>
> Brent
>
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 1:54:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Brent Beach" <brent_beach@telus.net> wrote...
>
>I have a large folder - about 18000 files with long file names.
>
>On my old machine, WIN ME FAT32, explorer could open this folder in
>a few seconds. On my new much faster XP machine, NTFS, it takes
>about 2 minutes to open the folder.
>
>Is there something I can do to speed this up (I have done a defrag).

I don't think it's a FAT vs NTFS issue; more likely a folder view issue. XP has
more view options available, but they take processing power (and time).

If you have used the view/customize... option to set up the folder for pictures,
XP will generate a thumbnail file (Thumbs.db) for the folder, which includes a
thumbnail of each jpg. if you have not kept the folder open long enough for XP
to finish generating the .db, or you have deleted the file, or you have added
more files since you last opened, XP may still be working on it.

Also, if your default view is tiles or icons or thumbnails or filmstrip, XP has
to generate the graphics for each jpg visible on the screen (and maybe continues
to generate the rest). If your graphics card is slow, it could take a while.

To speed it up, revert to a Documents folder, and a List or Details view.
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 2:22:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Brent Beach wrote
> I have a large folder - about 18000 files with long file names.
> On my old machine, WIN ME FAT32, explorer could open this folder in
> a few seconds. On my new much faster XP machine, NTFS, it takes
> about 2 minutes to open the folder.
>
> Is there something I can do to speed this up (I have done a defrag).

NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> It shouldn't take "seconds" on either type of file system. You do
> not give your system specs, so there is not much to go on. What are
> your system specs, and what types of files are in the folder?

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> If they are pictures/video files - may be some issues with Windows
> XP and the way it treats these files.

Brent Beach wrote:
> The ME machine is 667MHz, 5 years old. The XP is 2GHz Toshiba, 1 year
> old. The files are all JPGs, many with long file names. In fact, the
> directory just filled up on the ME machine (cannot add more files)
> with just under 19,000 files.
>
> On the ME machine it takes less than 3 seconds to open the directory.
> On the XP machine it takes about 2 minutes.


I gave a decent hint as to what could be wrong.
Yes - NTFS will be slower because it contains more information for each file
and directory than before. That slowness will be one that grows with the
number of files, as every file you add will have more information. You can
minimize (especially with pictures and video files) the amount of
information XP collects as a whole (it would collect this FAT32 or NTFS, so
the file system is not to blame for the two tips I am about to give you -
that you could have Googled for) in a few ways - here is few of them:

Windows XP treats JPGs and Video Files differently than previous Windows
Operating Systems. Trying to collect every bit of information possible
(size, etc), cache the thumbnail image so that you can see what is there
before opening the actual files, etc.

Try turning off the Thumbnail Caching.
1.. Click on "CONTROL PANEL" from the Start Menu.
2.. Click on "FOLDER OPTIONS" in the Control Panel.
3.. Click the view tab
4.. Finally - tick the "DO NOT CACHE THUMBNAILS" box and then click APPLY

Speed up AVI Access by removing this registry key:
[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{87D62D94-71B3-4b9a-9489-5FE6850DC73E}]


Disable the Indexing Service (Set it to disabled in the services list.)

Also, another question: Do you actually have two copies of these files on
two different hard drives? Or are you accessing them via network or CD/DVD?


Who knows what is wrong with the Windows XP machine in comparison to the ME
machine.. Spyware/Adware, bad hard drive, viruses or an assortment of other
things. Make sure the system is clean of all the malware you can think of
and defragmented.

--
<- Shenan ->
--
The information is provided "as is", it is suggested you research for
yourself before you take any advice - you are the one ultimately
responsible for your actions/problems/solutions. Know what you are
getting into before you jump in with both feet.
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:08:56 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Wow, Mr cZoNe!

cZoNe wrote:
> NTFS is slower than FAT32, but i wouldnt expect such a large performance
> drop, i agree it could be the way XP looks at the folder... but as new as
> your PC is what speed is the drive if your old one was 7400RPM and new one is
> a budget 5400RPM drive that can make a difference. i would go to
> pcpitstop.com and test your drive speeds.

Spent some time with pcpitstop on the two machines and the differences in
the drives is amazing.

The ME machine has the big directory on a second hard drive I added, an
Western Digital, which is 4 times as fast as the drive on the XP machine, a
Toshiba Satellite laptop.

Guess there is not much I am going to be able to do about this.

PCpitstop is a very interesting place.

Brent

>
> Alex
>
> "Brent Beach" wrote:
>
>
>>Hi
>>
>>Shenan Stanley wrote:
>>
>>>Brent Beach wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have a large folder - about 18000 files with long file names.
>>>>
>>>>On my old machine, WIN ME FAT32, explorer could open this folder in
>>>>a few seconds. On my new much faster XP machine, NTFS, it takes
>>>>about 2 minutes to open the folder.
>>>>
>>>>Is there something I can do to speed this up (I have done a defrag).
>>>
>>>
>>>NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It shouldn't take "seconds" on either type of file system. You do
>>>>not give your system specs, so there is not much to go on. What are
>>>>your system specs, and what types of files are in the folder?
>>>
>>>
>>>If they are pictures/video files - may be some issues with Windows XP and
>>>the way it treats these files.
>>
>>The ME machine is 667MHz, 5 years old. The XP is 2GHz Toshiba, 1 year old.
>>The files are all JPGs, many with long file names. In fact, the directory
>>just filled up on the ME machine (cannot add more files) with just under
>>19,000 files.
>>
>>On the ME machine it takes less than 3 seconds to open the directory. On
>>the XP machine it takes about 2 minutes.
>>
>>Brent
>>
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:27:37 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Hi

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> I gave a decent hint as to what could be wrong.
> Yes - NTFS will be slower because it contains more information for each file
> and directory than before. That slowness will be one that grows with the
> number of files, as every file you add will have more information. You can
> minimize (especially with pictures and video files) the amount of
> information XP collects as a whole (it would collect this FAT32 or NTFS, so
> the file system is not to blame for the two tips I am about to give you -
> that you could have Googled for) in a few ways - here is few of them:
>
> Windows XP treats JPGs and Video Files differently than previous Windows
> Operating Systems. Trying to collect every bit of information possible
> (size, etc), cache the thumbnail image so that you can see what is there
> before opening the actual files, etc.
>
> Try turning off the Thumbnail Caching.
> 1.. Click on "CONTROL PANEL" from the Start Menu.
> 2.. Click on "FOLDER OPTIONS" in the Control Panel.
> 3.. Click the view tab
> 4.. Finally - tick the "DO NOT CACHE THUMBNAILS" box and then click APPLY
>
> Speed up AVI Access by removing this registry key:
> [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{87D62D94-71B3-4b9a-9489-5FE6850DC73E}]

I have no idea what this is, but I did it. The number of keys I had to
scroll through to find this one is amazing - XP is a very complicated beast.

> Disable the Indexing Service (Set it to disabled in the services list.)

Having done all the above, the difference in the two machines is still
high: 43 seconds on the XP machine, under 3 seconds on the ME machine. The
operations were timed as the first act after a restart on both machines.
Not great, but down from 2 minutes.

> Also, another question: Do you actually have two copies of these files on
> two different hard drives? Or are you accessing them via network or CD/DVD?

One is a lap that I use when I am away from the desktop. The files are
copies. The laptop is the XP machine.

> Who knows what is wrong with the Windows XP machine in comparison to the ME
> machine.. Spyware/Adware, bad hard drive, viruses or an assortment of other
> things. Make sure the system is clean of all the malware you can think of
> and defragmented.

PCpitstop listed all the running programs and there is nothing unexpected
on either machine. I guess it is just the difference in disk drives.

Brent
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:27:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Brent Beach" <brent_beach@telus.net> wrote...
>
>> Disable the Indexing Service (Set it to disabled in the services list.)
>
> Having done all the above, the difference in the two machines is still high:
> 43 seconds on the XP machine, under 3 seconds on the ME machine. The
> operations were timed as the first act after a restart on both machines. Not
> great, but down from 2 minutes.
>
> One is a lap that I use when I am away from the desktop. The files are copies.
> The laptop is the XP machine.
>
> PCpitstop listed all the running programs and there is nothing unexpected on
> either machine. I guess it is just the difference in disk drives.

Now you have given us more information that you neglected first time around:
Desktop vs laptop, HD speeds...

Performance is more than CPU clock speed. If you have a significant difference
in bus speed, RAM, HD performance, graphics adapter, etc, your overall
performance may be significantly different on a "new laptop" when compared with
an "old desktop." For example, my 5-year-old P3/550 is over twice as fast
overall as my 2-year-old P3M/1200 in overall performance, and both use NTFS.
Maybe I oughtta mention the desktop has TWO P3/550s, 10K RPM SCSI U2 HDs, 1 GB
RAM, 3DLabs Oxygen gfx, and Win 2K Pro, while the laptop has 1 CPU, 5400 RPM
IDE HD, 512MB RAM, on-board gfx, and Win XP Home.

As I also mentioned in my previous post, how you set up XP to show the folder
makes a big difference. If you want all the pretty thumbnails, you will have to
put up with the performance hit. If you want to minimize that hit, but "need"
the thumbnail/filmstrip view, break it up into several subfolders so the
Thumbs.db is smaller and fewer gfx have to be generated each time the folder is
opened.

19,000 files in a single folder seems a bit ridiculous...
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:57:46 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

New Info!!

I noticed, after a lot of fiddling around, that if I right click on the
directory the do properties, it is able to scan and get the number of files
and total space in just 15 seconds. That is three times as fast as if I
open the directory. (15 seconds is much more accountable as the difference
in disk speeds)(first operation after a restart to make sure no cached stuff).

So XP is doing something extra when it actually collects the directory
information to display it that is taking an extra 30 seconds.

Brent

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> I gave a decent hint as to what could be wrong.
> Yes - NTFS will be slower because it contains more information for each file
> and directory than before. That slowness will be one that grows with the
> number of files, as every file you add will have more information. You can
....
> Who knows what is wrong with the Windows XP machine in comparison to the ME
> machine.. Spyware/Adware, bad hard drive, viruses or an assortment of other
> things. Make sure the system is clean of all the malware you can think of
> and defragmented.
November 7, 2004 11:33:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Hi,

try mst Defrag (http://www.mstsoftware.com). It's very fast and it
consumes only small memory.

If you like you can read a test on Kickstart News:
http://www.kickstartnews.com/reviews/utilities/mst_defr...

Bye
Rob


Brent Beach <brent_beach@telus.net> wrote in message news:<QAVid.55731$VA5.32233@clgrps13>...
> Hi
>
> I have a large folder - about 18000 files with long file names.
>
> On my old machine, WIN ME FAT32, explorer could open this folder in a few
> seconds. On my new much faster XP machine, NTFS, it takes about 2 minutes
> to open the folder.
>
> Is there something I can do to speed this up (I have done a defrag).
>
> Brent
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 7:08:50 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

It is simple.
Your winME fat32 system is used to handle that big folder.
& super fast XP with NTFS is still getting used to it.
Your problem will be solved by time.bcoz as time goes XP will used to tht
folder & then it will be faster.

Just like they say " it takes twice as long for the first time."

"Brent Beach" <brent_beach@telus.net> wrote in message
news:QAVid.55731$VA5.32233@clgrps13...
> Hi
>
> I have a large folder - about 18000 files with long file names.
>
> On my old machine, WIN ME FAT32, explorer could open this folder in a few
> seconds. On my new much faster XP machine, NTFS, it takes about 2 minutes
> to open the folder.
>
> Is there something I can do to speed this up (I have done a defrag).
>
> Brent
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 5:20:14 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

If your still haveing problems email me at ron@jfgraphic.com and I will
help you over the phone :) 


--
INOREGON
!