NTFS vs FAT

[ivica178]

Why is NTFS faster than FAT, or isn't?

 

[neverlate2day]

did u try googling before posting

 

[monaco]

To know these please go to http://www.wikipedia.org/, type NTFS then FAT. You will know more...

 

[alexandgruntz]

NTFS is more efficient than FAT(32), as NTFS's cluster sizes are smaller, resulting in less wasted space. It also supports compression and encryption. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS.

 

[Smith6612]

FAT is suppored by basically any operating system and is the least trouble free when it comes down to Linux and such. However NTFS is very flexible and a well done File System. Yeah it may be a pain in the butt to get working in Linux in some cases, but it's certainly much more efficient. Think of NTFS as Windows NT Kernel and FAT32 as DOS (which is actually what each File System is built for I believe). DOS is a bit more unstable than the NT Kernel.

 

[Livewire]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned that FAT cannot handle a single file larger than 4gb.

Granted theres very few LEGAL reasons to want a filesize larger than that, but there are some (DVD backups, game disc backups, etc).

So if you're trying to make a backup of your Crysis DVD, or of your favorite movie, you're dead in the water on FAT (assuming you're backing it up into an iso or other non-compressed format), whereas NTFS will simply say yes if theres enough space left.

 

[vol7ron]

FAT16 = Ancient
FAT32 = Legacy
NTFS = New compression/encryption and smaller clusters


NTFS is not backwards migratable, but FAT32 is forward migratable. I think I got that right. That is, if you installed your OS to FAT32, you can make it NTFS without losing any data. However, once you're NTFS, you cannot go back to FAT32, without reformatting and reinstalling your OS.

I heard from a Microsoft rep that NTFS is soon to be replaced as well.

 

[nirajkum]

FAT is like windows 98 very basic but very user frndly. NTFS is more sofisticated . The data is stored in NTFS is well organised as compared to FAT so it is fast .FAT cant handle file with more than 4GB.

To support NTFS on Linux yoc ana refer http://www.linux-ntfs.org/doku.php

 

[Sharky]

NTFS is not backwards migratable, but FAT32 is forward migratable. I think I got that right. That is, if you installed your OS to FAT32, you can make it NTFS without losing any data. However, once you're NTFS, you cannot go back to FAT32, without reformatting and reinstalling your OS.

Not quite true... PartitionMagic should be able to do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PartitionMagic

 

[Nathan H]

This is true, Partition magic does allow the transition between ANY file systems with no loss of data.

 

[vol7ron]

Not quite true... PartitionMagic should be able to do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PartitionMagic

This is true, Partition magic does allow the transition between ANY file systems with no loss of data.

I have PartitionMagic and use it only for it's space distribution and resizing features. I am not sure about going from NTFS->FAT. You guys quote wikipedia, but have you actually used the feature? I would also like to add that the author of the Wikipedia article also said, "(all without data loss, though some NTFS-only metadata is lost on conversion to FAT)." This should not be a huge issue because it's the <u>meta</u>data, but still something to consider - metadata is still data and can be useful to some programmers.

While PartitionMagic is a good software, that I like, it will never be as good as a full repartition - one that reformats and partitions the harddrive. The logical partitions created with software such as PartitionMagic have the ability to degrade performance based on how clusters are allocated and placed on the disk.

 

[Smith6612]

Also, I forgot to mention that NTFS drives don't get fragmented as much. I've noticed on some FAT32 drives I have sitting around here, while the drive data is bascially all compacted, it's all fragmented. NTFS while having files in clusers and then free space, at least keeps files nice and defragmented.

 

[vol7ron]

Also, I forgot to mention that NTFS drives don't get fragmented as much. I've noticed on some FAT32 drives I have sitting around here, while the drive data is bascially all compacted, it's all fragmented. NTFS while having files in clusers and then free space, at least keeps files nice and defragmented.

That makes no sense and is completely untrue. NTFS become fragmented just like any other file system. The fragmentation is due to several things, but mainly due to address allocation, poorly terminated/installed programs, and cache spool issues.

There are also other programs you can use to defragment your machine, such as Diskeeper. Diskeeper is based on the Windows Defragment software that comes with Windows, however Diskeeper does an excellent job in providing you statistics and other defragmenting options - especially boot time defrags to defrag your page and system files.

 

[Sharky]

I have PartitionMagic and use it only for it's space distribution and resizing features. I am not sure about going from NTFS->FAT. You guys quote wikipedia, but have you actually used the feature? I would also like to add that the author of the Wikipedia article also said, "(all without data loss, though some NTFS-only metadata is lost on conversion to FAT)." This should not be a huge issue because it's the <u>meta</u>data, but still something to consider - metadata is still data and can be useful to some programmers.

While PartitionMagic is a good software, that I like, it will never be as good as a full repartition - one that reformats and partitions the harddrive. The logical partitions created with software such as PartitionMagic have the ability to degrade performance based on how clusters are allocated and placed on the disk.

No, I have not used it, for the simple reason that I have never felt the need to convert a drives file system... mostly it's due to lack of trust, plus they always say to back up the data first, so... why bother converting at all? Why not back up the data, format, then put the data back?

I had heard of PM being able to do this before, but needed some sort of reference to put here, else it's just heresay. Then again, isn't most of Wikipedia just heresay?

 

[Smith6612]

That makes no sense and is completely untrue. NTFS become fragmented just like any other file system. The fragmentation is due to several things, but mainly due to address allocation, poorly terminated/installed programs, and cache spool issues.

There are also other programs you can use to defragment your machine, such as Diskeeper. Diskeeper is based on the Windows Defragment software that comes with Windows, however Diskeeper does an excellent job in providing you statistics and other defragmenting options - especially boot time defrags to defrag your page and system files.

I realize that, and I do know that NTFS does it fragmented. It's just the way the file system is designed, the way it "tells" operating systems to save files that basically keeps the drive from getting fragmented as much. Seriously, the next time you update all of your programs, see how fragmented a FAT32 drive is to an NTFS drive, and I can guarantee tha the FAT32 drive will be much more fragmented. As for defragmenting, Vista does that once a week on my gaming machine by running a batch file that runs the command line defragmenter.

 

[sybregunne]

yes ntfs is faster and yes fat is old tech, but fat has different flavors 16bit and 32bit. but since fat in any flavor is accessible via most operating system this will be a security risk, but on the other hand if your OS crashes then most probably your data is still intact. and easily recoverable. via most live cd systems (if the original cd of your os cannot be found.)

imagine a scenario where you are running a preinstalled version of windows xp on a machine bought, say 3 years ago, the installation cd cannot be found, your login accounts are password protected and encrypted, you don't have a backup of your data, and on startup xp freezes and gives you the blue screen of death, basically I'd say your data has next to 0 chance of being recovered.

although the linux communities' support for ntfs is becoming better now.

 

[Nathan H]

I do use this feature quite a bit more than i would like in honesty. I used to triple boot Xp, Vista and fedora. While i did like NTFS for all its pros, linux is terrible at reading it, so i used to switch between ntfs/fat depending on my mood.

 

[vol7ron]

I realize that, and I do know that NTFS does it fragmented. It's just the way the file system is designed, the way it "tells" operating systems to save files that basically keeps the drive from getting fragmented as much. Seriously, the next time you update all of your programs, see how fragmented a FAT32 drive is to an NTFS drive, and I can guarantee tha the FAT32 drive will be much more fragmented. As for defragmenting, Vista does that once a week on my gaming machine by running a batch file that runs the command line defragmenter.

Correct. I agree that we see FAT file systems as more fragmented, but I think the NTFS fragmentation has more to do with the OS and the controller. I haven't seen a test that compares WinXP FAT32 fragmentation vs. WinXP NTFS fragmentation, running the same programs over the course of 3 months. I'd like to see that to really compare the fragmentation differences.

I do use this feature quite a bit more than i would like in honesty. I used to triple boot Xp, Vista and fedora. While i did like NTFS for all its pros, linux is terrible at reading it, so i used to switch between ntfs/fat depending on my mood.

You triple-booter! Ha. Good ol' Linux, how we love you. The good news is that Linux could probably run just as well on any file system

 

[dickey]

I could say linux is good I triple boot also with windows XP, Ubuntu and Puppy. And I believe it gives a user more power when he is able to access any filesystem.

But the thing is, with security comes risks, but without risks there would be no computers... if you get what I am saying.

 

[Jon.Monreal]

FAT32 was meant for small drives. If you have a really small drive (or want a partition to share files between Windows and Linux), then FAT32 is definitely superior. Otherwise NTFS, as others have pointed out, is better.

For Linux, ext3 and ext4 rule.