I'm gonna be installing Win2k as a primary OS for a system. I might want to be able to view the file system using other OSes at some point in the future.
Is there a significant performance difference between NTFS and FAT32 under Win2k?
Printable View
I'm gonna be installing Win2k as a primary OS for a system. I might want to be able to view the file system using other OSes at some point in the future.
Is there a significant performance difference between NTFS and FAT32 under Win2k?
Quote:
MSDN
Overview of Windows 2000 File Systems
The file system you use with Windows 2000 determines which of the operating system's advanced features are available to you. To use a Windows 2000-based computer to startup in Microsoft® MS-DOS®, Microsoft® Windows® 3.x, or Microsoft® Windows® 95, use FAT16. For a multiple-boot configuration with Microsoft® Windows® 95 OSR2 or Microsoft® Windows® 98 using very large volumes, you might want to use FAT32. If you are concerned with disk security, performance, and efficiency, you might choose NTFS.
NTFS is more robust but for small partitions (say under 10GB) it is slower and requires more space than FAT32.
havent been able to find any "performance comparison report though" :(
hard to tell how much difference there would be.
http://people.msoe.edu/~barnicks/cou...rm%20Paper.pdf
NTFS actually offers better performance on Drives over 400mb, which is everything these days. I would personally go for NTFS, but if you need to have a dual boot, or have networked PCs read the drives as well, FAT32 might be better.
really, that small? Didn't know thatQuote:
Originally posted by Iain17
NTFS actually offers better performance on Drives over 400mb,
Hey, my title was all-caps and vBulletin changed it. Ah well.
Maybe I'll make an NTFS partition for the OS, applications and swap file, and stick all my data on a FAT32 partition.
take a butchers
http://people.msoe.edu/~barnicks/cou...rm%20Paper.pdf
go for NTFS
Thanks for the link, Chris.
NTFS is also a journaled file system (think the way an SQL DB uses transactions), and supports security. Its worth it just to be able to set user permissions on a file by file basis.
Harry Said
"I might want to be able to view the file system using other OSes at some point in the future. "
So if the other OS is Windows 98,Linux etc.. You must have to use FAT32 because they can't see a NTFS File System.
The NTFS driver for Linux is slightly buggy and I won't count on it.
http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/status.html
One problem with NTFS. If your Windows install screws over, you are royally ****ed, since you have to nuke the ENTIRE partition, deleting everything on it, recreate it, reformat it, and reinstall.
If you want a recovery option there is always ....
NTFSDOS (Read only access)
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/fr.../NTFSDOS.shtml
which helped me to get back important files stuck up in a ruined NTFS partition. I just copied this program to my dos boot disk, booted from it and copied all the files in the NTFS partition to a FAT32 partition.
Yeah, I've used that too. Works great.
And couldn't you have one partition NTFS, another FAT32, another ext3, etc.