ntfs file system

[Guest]

what are the specs on ntfs? is there really any advantage to use ntfs over fat32? pros? cons?

any help is appreciated
thanks

It is my ambition to say in ten sentences; what others
say in a whole book."

 

[Arrow]

Let me point you over to this thread:
<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1</A>

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>

 

[btvillarin]

Here's an FAQ at Anandtech:
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=63" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=63</A>

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=13406" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[AMD_Man]

NTFS provides enhanced security, efficency and stability but not performance.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

 

[ejsmith2]

"efficency and stability but not performance. "

You're backwards. Should read:

"performance and stability but not efficency. "

Rich is the nation that has many war heroes. Long since forgotten...

 

[Arrow]

Can you elaborate on your statement? I would actually think it's the other way around...

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>

 

[AMD_Man]

You're backwards. Should read:

"performance and stability but not efficency. "

That's completely wrong!! The NTFS file system is very efficent because the cluster sizes are smaller! While my 40GB hard drive uses 32KB clusters under FAT32, it's only 4KB clusters under NTFS.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

 

[flamethrower205]

When I went to NTFS though, it was considerably faster. Maybe it's all 3?

If it's working...overclock it!

 

[AMD_Man]

Perhaps NTFS has better caching? I can't think of any other way performance would improve.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

 

[Toejam31]

Here's an informative link:

<A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q100/1/08.ASP" target="_new">http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q100/1/08.ASP</A>

Toejam31

<font color=red>My Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>
____________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."</font color=purple>

 

[ejsmith2]

"That's completely wrong!! "

Not exactly.

But kind of from your perspective.

I keep my partitions as small as possible. The largest I have is about 25gig.
So, under NTFS:

3 gig is reserved for the MFT. That means the maximum 'disk free space' reported by windows explorer will never get above 22gig. Try it!
Cluster sizes can range between 4k and 64k. The larger cluster sizes is nice if you're running an ftp with really large files.

Under FAT32:
The cluster sizes will be either 16k or 32k. I'm not going to use my calculator to figure it out. Now if I have 10,000 files on that drive, no doubt I will save close to 200meg by dropping the cluster size. Unless you have upwards of 30,000 files, you're just not going to approach the 3gig (12.5%, minimum) that is 'reserved' by ntfs.

Efficiency means a balance of speed and space usage. Now, if NTFS was 100% faster than FAT32, it's efficiency rating would crank up there; possible surpassing FAT32.
I'm not knocking NTFS. I use it for my measly 2gig system partition on both my systems. But, on my data drives, I don't use it because the space is more important to me than the speed.

What I am knocking is msft's setting of 12.5% (minimum) for the MFT. At the absolute least, they should have given users (read:system administrators) a choice of 1% and a 2fragmented MFT, or 6.25% and a fragmented MFT, or 12.5% and no fragmented MFT...

Rich is the nation that has many war heroes. Long since forgotten...

 

[AMD_Man]

That doesn't sound right. I have a 40GB hard drive that reports 37.2GB under FAT32 and 37.2GB under NTFS! The lost disk space does not come from the large file system! It comes from the way hard drive manufacturers rate hard drive sizes. A 40GB hard drive is either 40 billion bytes or 42949672960 bytes. Hard drive manufacturer choose 40 billion bytes to rate the hard drive.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor