 sechsPremium
join:2001-07-19
Left Coast
| FAT vs. NTFS MiniFAQ When I mention "FAT," I usually mean FAT32, which most people would use. When I mention "NTFS," I usually am referring to versions 5.0 and/or 5.1, which are used by Win2k and WinXP, respectively. Win9x refers to Win95, Win98, and WinME. A "volume" is a data (primary, logical, or dynamic) partition.
What is FAT? What is NTFS?
* FAT and NTFS are not programs or file formats; they are ways to arrange files on a disk and store information about them
* FAT stands for File Allocation Table; FAT comes in several flavours, including FAT16, VFAT, and FAT32
* NTFS stands for New Technology File System; NTFS has several versions associated with different versions of WinNT/2k/XP
* Useful Links:
o Description of FAT32 (Microsoft Knowledge Base): »support.microsoft.com/support/kb···9/97.asp
o NTFS File System (Digit Life): »www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/index.html
o NTFS Preinstallation and WinXP (Microsoft): »www.microsoft.com/hwdev/storage/···tall.htm
Which can I use? Can Win9x/2k/XP/DOS read FAT/NTFS?
* Win2k/XP format FAT32 volumes larger than ~32gb; Microsoft recommends NTFS for volumes larger than that
* Win9x cannot read NTFS; NTFS for Win98 will allow Win9x to read (demo) and write (full) on NTFS volumes »www.winternals.com/products/fct/···in98.asp
* DOS cannot read NTFS or FAT32; NTFSDOS will allow DOS to use NTFS volumes »www.winternals.com/products/NTFSdospro.shtml
Will all my applications work with NTFS?
* The file systems used on volumes are irrelevant to most applications, including games; it matters for some utilities, however
If I install with FAT/NTFS will I be able read the other file system?
* A computer can have both FAT and NTFS on it, and Win2k/XP will be able to read them both; boot/system/swap drives can have either format
If I use NTFS will I be able to use floppies/CD-ROMS/network drives?
* Floppies are always formatted FAT in Windows; NTFSflp allows NTFS formatted floppies »www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freew···py.shtml
* CD-ROMS are usually formatted ISO-9660 or UDF, never NTFS or FAT
* The formats of networked drives and network shares are irrelevant in sharing; your shared folders on NTFS drives can be used by Win9x systems
Can I convert between NTFS and FAT? How do I remove NTFS?
* Win2k/XP comes with the "convert" command-line utility to go from FAT32 to NTFS; this conversion tends to give the volume greater fragmentation of system areas and non-optimal cluster sizes (original size maintained)
* Windows doesn't provide for conversion from NTFS to FAT; PartitionMagic from PowerQuest will do it »www.powerquest.com
* Removing NTFS partitions by formatting (Microsoft Knowledge Base): »support.microsoft.com/support/kb···98&rnk=9
What are the advantages of FAT over NTFS?
* Performs faster on volumes ~10GB and less
* Works well with small disk cache and system cache (less than 96MB systems)
What are the disadvantages of FAT?
* Gets slower as the number of files on a partition increases
* Slows as volume size increases, because drive must constantly reference the file allocation table at the beginning of the volume
* Tends to highly fragment files
What are the advantages of NTFS over FAT?
* Is the native file system for WinNT/2k/XP
* Allows indexing which improves file searching (mostly, faster); causes slight performance hit (can turn off)
* Has better security -- such as file-wise encryption (not supported by WinXP home) and per-user access rules (you can stop your wife from seeing the porn folder!)
* Supports user quotas (prevent the tykes from downloading too many mp3s)
* Has file-wise compression
* Is journaled, decreasing data loss (ScanDisk at start up unnecessary)
* Uses Unicode (allows foreign and extended character) file names and natively supports long file names
* Supports larger files than FAT (greater than 4GB)
* Allows larger volume sizes (greater than 1TB)
* Supported format on dynamic disks (no dynamic disks on WinXP Home)
* Works well with large cache (greater than 96MB systems)
* Performs better on volumes ~20GB and more
* Is more space-efficient on large volumes (greater than 8GB)
* Resistant to fragmentation
What are the disadvantages of NTFS?
* Suffers with small cache (less than 96MB systems)
* Suffers with slow disks and controllers
* Is less space-efficient on small volumes (less than 4GB)
Should I use FAT or NTFS? Which is faster?
* Some people report FAT is faster than NTFS; other report that NTFS is faster than FAT. Compare your system specs and needs with the advantages and disadvantages of each file system.
* Comfort level is important -- if you are apprehensive about using NTFS, then do not put your important files on it! You can always convert from FAT to NTFS later. Try NTFS on a spare partition first, if possible.
Consider FAT if you have:
- Less than 96MB of memory
- A "slow" disk (less than 5400RPM) and/or controller (slower than ATA/33)
- A volume of 10GB or less
- A volume you want to use with a Win9x OS
Consider NTFS if you:
- Have a volume of 20GB or more
- Have 128MB or more system memory
- Will have a large number of files and folders (greater than 100,000 total)
- Use files greater than 4GB in size
- Use dynamic disks/soft RAID
- Want faster file searches
- Want greater file security
- Want to control which files and directories users can see and use
- Want to control how much disk space users can utilize
- Want file compression
- Want to improve data integrity
- Want to use foreign/extended characters in file names
[text was edited by author 2001-11-09 23:54:22] |
|
 MSengPremium,Ex-Mod 2001-08
join:2000-07-13
Ork
kudos:6 | sechs, thank you for taking on this subject. This should prove to be an invaluable resource for a long time.
Great work.
--
I intend to live forever - so far so good... |
|
|
|
 AwgeewhizGort, Klaatu Barada NiktoPremium
join:2001-03-04
Delta, PA | reply to sechs
Fantastic Job Sechs! A definite vote up from me too! |
|
 WSoxRockGo Sox
join:2000-10-10
Lake Villa, IL | reply to sechs
Great work! Lots of great info. Think this should be above permanently. Should answer a lot of questions. Seems to be a popular one lately. 
--
If God had wanted to go around nude, He would have given us bigger hands. |
|
| reply to sechs
Thanks for the info Sechs. |
|
 eberglarThanks for the memoriesPremium
join:2001-03-04
Bloomsbury, NJ
| reply to sechs
said by sechs:
* Win2k/XP cannot access FAT32 volumes larger than ~32gb; Microsoft recommends NTFS for volumes larger than that
Fine FAQ, Sechs. But WinXP can access this FAT32 volume. Am I missing something?
[text was edited by author 2001-11-09 20:58:05] |
|
 slashPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-01
Boston | reply to sechs
If you're missing something, I am too. Did you upgrade or clean install? I answered someones question about a similar situation about a week ago. He could only format with NTFS with about a 38gig partition and he had to break it up to get FAT32.
Why not use NTFS, you read the FAQ?
Great faq, btw, thumbs for you.
--
»www.geocities.com/slashdot14 |
|
 fritzmpBiker TuxPremium
join:2001-08-29
Warrenton, VA
| reply to sechs
That was much needed. Good explanation.
[text was edited by author 2001-11-09 21:00:21] |
|
 BassistguyAlrighty ThenPremium
join:2001-07-14
Ballwin, MO
| reply to sechs
All I have to say is...EXCELLENT! Definitely a very useful thread/resource. I needed it myself  .... now I'm thinking about converting to NTFS. Thumbs up!!!
[text was edited by author 2001-11-09 21:08:20] |
|
sechsPremium
join:2001-07-19
Left Coast
| reply to eberglar
said by eberglar:
said by sechs:
* Win2k/XP cannot access FAT32 volumes larger than ~32gb; Microsoft recommends NTFS for volumes larger than that
Fine FAQ, Sechs. But WinXP can access this FAT32 volume. Am I missing something?
[text was edited by author 2001-11-09 20:58:05]
According to one of the MS sources, the fastfat driver doesn't handle FAT32 volumes larger than ~32GB; that looks to be a mistake (why did I believe MS any way?).
According to the Win2k RK site (»www.microsoft.com/windows2000/te···dxob.asp ), Win2k (and WinXP, presumably) can support FAT32 volumes larger than 32GB, if it was created by another OS.
--
It's not what you know but who you know... |
|
 janderso1JimPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-15
Saint Petersburg, FL | reply to sechs
Thanks for putting all together in one place. I currently use NTFS for my Windows 2000 boot partition and VFat32 for Windows 98SE boot(dual boot using bootmagic) and all the program/data partitions. If/when I don't need 98, I will convert everything to NTFS
--
Jim Anderson |
|
eberglarThanks for the memoriesPremium
join:2001-03-04
Bloomsbury, NJ | reply to sechs
said by sechs:
According to the Win2k RK site (»www.microsoft.com/windows2000/te···dxob.asp ), Win2k (and WinXP, presumably) can support FAT32 volumes larger than 32GB, if it was created by another OS.
That would make sense, because I installed that hard drive long before I intalled XP.
--
War has been waged against us by stealth, and deceit, and murder. This nation is peaceful - but fierce when stirred to anger. (George W. Bush - 9/14/2001) |
|
sechsPremium
join:2001-07-19
Left Coast | said by eberglar:
said by sechs:
According to the Win2k RK site (»www.microsoft.com/windows2000/te···dxob.asp ), Win2k (and WinXP, presumably) can support FAT32 volumes larger than 32GB, if it was created by another OS.
That would make sense, because I installed that hard drive long before I intalled XP.
Well, I've never had a FAT partition larger than 10GB, so there was no personal experience there. Can't imagine the cluster waste on a volume larger than 20GB... obviously, you're experiencing it.
I've fixed the "offending" point, so everything should be sunny and happy, now.
--
It's not what you know but who you know... |
|
 TOTCI only exist to make you cryPremium
join:2001-05-16
Van Nuys, CA | reply to sechs
What do you recommend for my specs., After this thread I like the sound of "NTFS".. |
|
 YBoris
join:2001-06-01
Old Bridge, NJ | reply to sechs
BIG QUESTION !!! question remains:
what is the maximum filesize under FAT16 and FAT32
... I know NTFS has no maximum filesize
THANKS
--
Be optimistic |
|
sechsPremium
join:2001-07-19
Left Coast
| For FAT16, it's just 2GB file and 2GB partition(with 32k clusters).
For FAT32, it's 4GB with 2TB partition(with 32k clusters).
For NTFS, it's 2TB with 16EB partition (yes, that's exabytes, and there's no restriction on cluster size).
[Edit: Here's a source, that's not MS: »realforum.real.com/realforum/msg07620.html ]
[text was edited by author 2001-11-10 01:29:32] |
|
eberglarThanks for the memoriesPremium
join:2001-03-04
Bloomsbury, NJ | reply to sechs
Re: FAT vs. NTFS MiniFAQ said by sechs:
Can't imagine the cluster waste on a volume larger than 20GB... obviously, you're experiencing it.
Are you saying that if I convert the volume to NTFS that I would regain a significant amount of wasted drive space?
--
War has been waged against us by stealth, and deceit, and murder. This nation is peaceful - but fierce when stirred to anger. (George W. Bush - 9/14/2001) |
|
sechsPremium
join:2001-07-19
Left Coast | said by eberglar:
said by sechs:
Can't imagine the cluster waste on a volume larger than 20GB... obviously, you're experiencing it.
Are you saying that if I convert the volume to NTFS that I would regain a significant amount of wasted drive space?
Not necessarily, but you probably would. It would be more accurate to say that if you had used NTFS from the start, you would now have a "significant" greater amount of space available.
I was talking about the amount of allocated, yet unused space in those 32k clusters. In my largest NTFS volume (29.9GB, 4k clusters), the difference between the amount of file data on the disk and the amount used is about 300MB, which includes system restore, recycler, and the system volume files; that's pretty good.
--
It's not what you know but who you know... |
|
 mlitdPremium
join:2001-01-06 | reply to sechs
Good info. Something for me to do at night. |
|
 SkipdawgThe OriginalPremium,ExMod 2001-03
join:2001-04-19
Mount Vernon, WA | reply to sechs
Ditto on the good job. I am sure this will help may. |
|
