What is the advantage of NTFS over FAT?

[ProgrammerJon]

What is the advantage of NTFS over FAT?

[JoshT]

NTFS is a (relatively) modern file system that provides for security and reliablilty. NTFS needs scandisk or defrag ran on it far less (you could argue that it shouldn't need defrag at all). FAT is a legacy DOS file system which provides no security whatsoever.

[ProgrammerJon]

So NTFS is just more reliable and has better security?

[mendhak]

NTFS was created with security and reliability in mind, to make up for the shortcomings of FAT.

In NTFS, you can set permissions on individual files and folders. So you can actually specify which users can use which resources.

Also, NTFS has a better method of writing its files. As far as I've seen, you can pull the plug of an NTFS machine, and when you reboot, you won't need to scandisk.

However, NTFS has a larger overhead (since it's storing info on each and every file and folder and resource). I believe it's about 4MB of overhead. You can never create an NTFS formatted floppy.

[ProgrammerJon]

Is there any reason why you wouldn't use NTFS?

[JoshT]

Originally posted by mendhak
You can never create an NTFS formatted floppy.

http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/fr...fsfloppy.shtml

[JoshT]

Originally posted by ProgrammerJon
Is there any reason why you wouldn't use NTFS?

Dual booting - almost all OSes can read FAT by default, so you can share FAT partitions across OSes.

[mendhak]

Possible reasons for not using NTFS:

1. I'm stupid.
2. I'm with stupid.
3. I'm a home user, I don't need the security
4. I'm on a network, but it's a small workgroup, security isn't a big deal


Basically, there isn't much point using it if it's not a requirement for you. Granted that the option does come with win2k and winxp, but I'd say it's most likely in there for a networking environment, which is becoming increasingly common by the day.

[mendhak]

Originally posted by JoshT
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/fr...fsfloppy.shtml

Alright, I didn't know that.

So I'll change that to:

You can never create an NTFS formatted floppy under normal working conditions.

[ProgrammerJon]

I'm a home user but I might be doing some programming with ASP.NET.
If you can't normal create a floppy with NTFS dose that mean that I wouldn't beable to use floppys anymore, or can I still create FAT floppies?

[JoshT]

Yeah, you format the floppies at FAT. You don't have to use the same filesystem for every disk/partition in the computer - CDs use their own file systems, for example.

If you're running IIS, you'll want NTFS for the extra security - you can prevent the web account from having access to the rest of your file system, etc. Even if its just a learning/test box, you can still practice secure configuration, etc.

[ProgrammerJon]

So if I decide to re-format then it would probably be best to use NTFS.

[JoshT]

Originally posted by ProgrammerJon
So if I decide to re-format then it would probably be best to use NTFS.

I would. There should be a convert utility to convert a FAT partition to NTFS if you need to, also.

[Sastraxi]

If you do intend to dual-boot, I suggest maybe a 2 or 3 gig FAT32 partition simply so you can create files in another OS and view them in Windows.

[ProgrammerJon]

Thanks, but i'm not inteding to dual boot

[siyan]

if memory serves correctly, the structure of NTFS generally results in less fragmentation

[alex_read]

Fat offers a slighly quicker file system most of the time (apart from copying huge folders) & is preffered for home use. Also, Fdisk & format commands in dos will recognise Fat partitions, it won't pick up ntfs partitions though.

NTFS has shedloads of security features & doesn't need as many defrags run on it & is preferred at a workplace or on a small network (probably 5+ pc's for example).

Normally at home, I'd stick with Fat32.

[JoshT]

Originally posted by alex_read
Normally at home, I'd stick with Fat32.

If you don't mind that kids/siblings/friends/pets, etc can deliberately or innocently mess up your FAT partitions, I guess that's ok.

[alex_read]

If you can show me a pet that can screw up a FAT partition, I'll give you a grand!

[parksie]

Windows NT should never be installed onto a FAT32 partition. If you need the compatibility, have more than one partition. Just keep the system on NTFS and it's a damn sight happier. Also prevents you corrupting the OS in case of a blue-screen.

Note: Don't use the FAT->NTFS converter. It messes up the tables and allocates far too many units, causing it to fragment about 5 times as quickly.

[JoshT]

Originally posted by alex_read
If you can show me a pet that can screw up a FAT partition, I'll give you a grand!

I had a dog once that would have chewed through an entire computer if she could have got her teeth close enough to it

[parksie]

Either way, it's still very easy to recover the data from the partitions even if the electronics are toast

[Dreamlax]

I know this thread is out-dated, but another reason to use NTFS is because it is fully Unicode compatible. I quite often use Japanese folder and file names. The kind of software that would want to get those files are the kind that only work with ASCII strings, so all they get is "?????.doc" instead of the real characters. Not really any safer, but it's convenient to be able to have Unicode file names.

[Ideas Man]

Just to add on, NTFS allows you to use encryption in Windows XP and NTFS has a much larger HDD support than FAT32, something in the terabytes. If you want to do video editing, NTFS is also the best way to go because FAT32 has a relativly small file size limit, whereas the limit in NTFS is also in the terrabytes.

[Dreamlax]

Originally posted by Ideas Man
Just to add on, NTFS allows you to use encryption in Windows XP and NTFS has a much larger HDD support than FAT32, something in the terabytes. If you want to do video editing, NTFS is also the best way to go because FAT32 has a relativly small file size limit, whereas the limit in NTFS is also in the terrabytes.

Yep that's true. FAT32 doesn't allow files over 2GB. NTFS allows drives up to 2⁴⁶ bytes (70,368,744,177,664), or 64TB, and that is the maximum size for a file I think too. There aren't many advantages of FAT32 over NTFS anymore, especially since a lot of Linux distributions have the capability to use NTFS anyway.

If you have doubts about which one you should use, use FAT32, because you can always convert to NTFS later (but not vice versa!).

[dglienna]

prove that the dog didn't break the hard drive. she was the only one home when it finally crashed

Pay me if you can't!

[Dave Sell]

Originally posted by Dreamlax
Yep that's true. FAT32 doesn't allow files over 2GB. NTFS allows drives up to 2⁴⁶ bytes (70,368,744,177,664), or 64TB, and that is the maximum size for a file I think too. There aren't many advantages of FAT32 over NTFS anymore, especially since a lot of Linux distributions have the capability to use NTFS anyway.

If you have doubts about which one you should use, use FAT32, because you can always convert to NTFS later (but not vice versa!).

FAT32 CON: Can't create/use partition > 65GB. File Size limited, < 2 GB. No level of security available.

FAT32 PRO: Faster disk R/W access to files, very easy to defrag, can keep clean and crisp over long period of time. Can create bootable floppies to edit the FS in the case the OS won't boot.

NTFS PRO: Supports disk partitions > 65GB into the TB range. Can create files > 2GB , up to the TB range I think. Actual level of security available, Group/User security per file/ per folder.

NTFS CON: Slower rates of R/W disk access to files due to an extra layer of complexity introduced by the PRO's of the FS. Very hard to defragment back to an original state, over long periods of time (6 months+) FS can become noticeably fragmented to the point that the user can notice a significant slow-down in everything which requires disk access. Cannot create a bootable floppy to edit the FS (cannot write to disk) implying when the OS won't boot you cannot fix with a floppy.

The last CON to NTFS is not so big a deal anymore, as you can boot to the XP CD and get write access to the FS in a command shell.

In today's world, given you have a mobo to boot to CD, and a very large HardDisk (> 65GB), and you have WinXP, NTFS is your best choice.

However, if you have a HardDisk < 65GB and you are not concerned about anyone in your location looking at your files, and you are very concerned about fast disk access, then FAT32 is the clear choice for you.

As posted earlier, you can always go from FAT32 to NTFS, but not the other way around!

[dglienna]

Isn't NTFS reported to be faster than FAT? It sure seems that way on the E-Machine that we just installed XP on. The 766mhz machine is actually a lot faster than it was with ME on it!

[Dave Sell]

Yes, NTFS is commonly reported to be faster than FAT32 and FAT16, however that is an incorrect report. Do some benchmarks of your own. And that is just referring to an initial installation of an OS.

FAT32 holds up far better than NTFS as time marc hes on, and your os installation grows. This is where FAT really shines - in its ability to be defragmented. This part I can't actually explain; I just know this from years and years of experience and benchmarking.

[SLH]

One other thing that i like about NTFS is that you can compress files and folders, thus fitting more data on your hard disk than using a FAT system.

[Dave Sell]

Originally posted by SLH
One other thing that i like about NTFS is that you can compress files and folders, thus fitting more data on your hard disk than using a FAT system.

I agree, but this is only valid for compressible files. Most EXEs, ZIPs MP3s, and JPGs will not compress any further, thus making the compressed drive rather useless for those types of files.

[wossname]

I reformatted my new external HDD (300GB) to NTFS because it came with FAT32 on it. My PC is WinXP/NTFS so I thought for simplicity I'd format the external drive to NTFS.

btw: I just backed up my internal drive to the external one and it hardly even registered on the used/free pie chart! w00t!!!11!