NTFS faster than FAT32 in WinXP OS ?

labdog · Jan 13, 2002

Hi All,

im not talking about clusters size or NTFS security add-ons, it's just a global question about performances between those 2 file systems.

What, as your opinion, is the faster one in WinXP OS ?

thanks for all opinions about.

if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.

btvillarin · Jan 14, 2002

This <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=63" target="_new">Anandtech FAQ</A> is a good read. But, short answer: use NTFS for the most efficiency.

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/btvillarin" target="_new">My Website</A> - updated basically everyday.

labdog · Jan 14, 2002

Are you sure ?

from the Anandtech FAQ:
<blockquote>En réponse à:<hr>All of the above does have its impact on performance though, and it is recommended that you disable any features that are not needed if you use NTFS.<hr></blockquote>
What do you think about ?

if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.

btvillarin · Jan 15, 2002

What it's getting at is that some of the features impact it's performance. But, they can still be disabled. If you read the whole article, I think the pros outweigh the cons for NTFS (unless you need it for a dual-boot).

I especially like this part, that's five paragraphs up from where you've quoted:
"As drive sizes and the sheer number of files on a partition increases, NTFS's performance does not degrade. On partitions or directories with several thousands of files, FAT32 operations slow to a crawl."

But, I'm not gonna decide for you.

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/btvillarin" target="_new">My Website</A> - updated basically everyday.

Guest · Jan 23, 2002

NTFS is SLOW
Because it must check that someone own this file

blah · Jan 23, 2002

""On partitions or directories with several thousands of files, FAT32 operations slow to a crawl.""

I would like to know what size of the partition or directory they were testing, coz I have FAT32 25 Gig partition with 22 of them gone for the incredible variety of files (one directory has more than 4 Gigs), and I see no difference in performance in none of the OSs I use with that partition. WinME even seams to work with it snappier than Win2k or XP, but that is only my feeling.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...

Grifter · Jan 23, 2002

Doesn't XP have some kind of restriction on drive size if you use FAT32 ?
something like you cant have more than 32 GB ?!?!

Trying is the first step to failure

btvillarin · Jan 23, 2002

I'm not exactly sure. All I know that I'd rather have efficiency than performance. And for me, Windows XP is snappy enough. That FAQ is informative, I think, so it should assist you in deciding whether or not NTFS is right for you.

(I'm not sure if they're testing files on the primary OS partition, or another partition just for data...)

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/btvillarin" target="_new">My Website</A>-reorganized & updated everyday

Toejam31 · Jan 23, 2002

This <A HREF="http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/storage/ntfs-preinstall.asp" target="_new">page</A> also has a lot of useful information on the subject.

Toejam31

My Rig: <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">Toejam31's Tantalizing Tantric Toy</A>
____________________________________________________________

"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

btvillarin · Jan 24, 2002

Another link to add to my site/favorites...

(Thanks to the great Toey)

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/btvillarin" target="_new">My Website</A>-reorganized & updated everyday

Toejam31 · Jan 24, 2002

Always glad to be of service, buddy!

Toejam31

My Rig: <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">Toejam31's Tantalizing Tantric Toy</A>
____________________________________________________________

"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

labdog · Feb 12, 2002

i convert fat32 to ntfs for my 40Go hd & now my system work slowly !!

thanks for your advice !

if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.

labdog · Feb 12, 2002

ok. i didn't know so i tried it.

i have converted my fat32 to ntfs for my 40Go hd

& now my XP system work slowly.

but i can't reverse the process
(ok, i know... you can laugh a bit

i had a little doubt because of the cluster size difference between the 2 fs (4K/ntfs vs 32K/fat32) but now it's clear !

so my advice is:

don't swap fat32 to ntfs if you don't need it !

very simple advice in fact but you have to test it before.

note:
& whatever microsoft can say about because we have to recognize propaganda.

if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.

labdog · Feb 12, 2002

it's true but just a part of the explanation

don't forget the clusters size difference between the 2 fs
4K vs 32K

if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.

OldBear · Feb 12, 2002

Where have you been?

Partition Magic 7.0 can convert back to fat32.

º

º You get what you pay for.

All advice here is free.

labdog · Feb 12, 2002

i don't have it & i don't want to pay for that.

can you send me a copy ?

thanks.

if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.

Zlash · Feb 12, 2002

You do know that 32k clusters wastes a ton of space right? I've really noticed no big increase or decrease in speed between the two systems.

And yea i'm pretty sure the max partition size for fat32 is 32gb and nfts is like in the Terabytes somewhere hehe.

...

Toejam31 · Feb 12, 2002

32GB is not the maximum size for a FAT32 partition. But it is the maximum size that a Win2K or a WinXP CD can make on a clean hard disk if you choose the file system during the OS installation.

FAT32 supports volumes up to two terabytes in size. NTFS supports volumes up to sixteen exabytes in size.

Toejam31

My Rig: <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">Toejam31's Tantalizing Tantric Toy</A>
Second Rig: <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=15942" target="_new">Toey's Dynamite DDR Duron</A>
____________________________________________________________

"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

Zlash · Feb 13, 2002

Sorry i think i'm just mixing up chs, echs, lba with file systems hehe. But maybe you could elaborate more on the win2k/xp 32gig max for me, and by clean hard disk you mean first time it's been used or freshly formatted?

...

AMD_Man · Feb 13, 2002

In my personal testing, I have found NTFS to be slightly slower than FAT32. However, it is more efficient and is less susceptible to errors. As far as I can tell, the WinXP chkdsk error I reported is merely a flaw in the checking process of WinXP but will not corrupt any files or damage any data.

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

Toejam31 · Feb 13, 2002

Check out this <A HREF="http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=8824" target="_new">article</A>, and look under the section,"FAT32 Foibles". That should explain it, and save me some typing!

By clean hard disk, I mean ... not partitioned, which also implies not formatted. It doesn't matter if the disk has been used previously. For all intents and purposes, a hard drive with no partitions or files systems is clean. You won't see anything on the disk from DOS or an operating system CD, anyway.

(Let's not talk about data recovery and start splitting hairs here, guys. You know what I mean! LOL!)

Toejam31

My Rig: <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">Toejam31's Tantalizing Tantric Toy</A>
Second Rig: <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=15942" target="_new">Toey's Dynamite DDR Duron</A>
____________________________________________________________

"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

Zlash · Feb 13, 2002

Ok that'll explain that to me, so much technology to keep up with hehe. I figured FAT32's size limitation would be somewhere in this universe like FAT16 (2GB? at 64k clusters). But i guess things do progress exponentially around here...

...

Toejam31 · Feb 13, 2002

Interesting enough, to make it even more confusing ... the 2GB FAT16 limitation is not the same in Windows 2000. It's 4GB in Win2K ... but 2GB when using FDISK in DOS. It just depends on which disk management utility is doing the partitioning. Most people don't notice this kind of thing unless you like to multi-boot with different operating systems.

It's enough to make your head hurt, huh? Join the crowd.

Toey

My Rig: <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">Toejam31's Tantalizing Tantric Toy</A>
Second Rig: <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=15942" target="_new">Toey's Dynamite DDR Duron</A>
____________________________________________________________

"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

Zlash · Feb 13, 2002

Let's just come up with a FS that supports a googaplex and be done with it.

...

OldBear · Feb 13, 2002

Please do. I will buy it.

º

º You get what you pay for.

All advice here is free.

NTFS faster than FAT32 in WinXP OS ?

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Share this page