Format NTFS (quick) vs. normal NTFS format

[MichaelD]

For years now, I've always formatted my NTFS partitions using the "quick" option; I've never had a problem. Whether the drive was brand new in the box or older than dirt, I just choose the "quick" option. Who wants to wait an hour for a 40GB partition to format, right?

Well, I decided to do a little digging and found Microsoft's take on it.

MS states:

When you choose to run a regular format on a volume, files are removed from the volume that you are formatting and the hard disk is scanned for bad sectors. The scan for bad sectors is responsible for the majority of the time that it takes to format a volume.

If you choose the Quick format option, format removes files from the partition, but does not scan the disk for bad sectors. Only use this option if your hard disk has been previously formatted and you are sure that your hard disk is not damaged.

They specifically say to only use "quick" if the disk was previously formatted.

Hard drives today are much more reliable and better made than their older brothers. Do we still need to "slow format" partitions? What are the risks? Discuss.

 

[degibson]

I generally use quick formats on new drives only. I almost always do a full format if a drive has been previously formatted -- after all, damage in drives accumulates. Some may call me naive for assuming that the drive doesn't arrive in a damaged state, but I generally buy fairly high-quality drives.

As far as how effective a 'full' format is, however, I'm doubtful. A beautiful new 750 GB barracuda has ~200MB/s of read/write bandwidth (http://www.tomshardware.com/re...ig-league,1275-8.html). To write and then read the entire drive -- the operation required to perform a very basic 'full test' will take just over two hours. That only tests one bit pattern per block -- its probably sufficient to find full-block failures but not single stuck bits. Then again, I don't really know how HDs typically fail -- I simply know that no matter what the actual defect is, the typical way to handle it is to avoid the affected block. Moreover, the only NTFS format failures, quick or otherwise, that I have seen have been on disks that are very obviously damaged (e.g. making Yeti noises, on fire, or with a hole drilled through it).

On the other hand, a 'quick' format just clobbers the FS metadata and ignores the rest of the drive. I haven't taken intro to OS's lately, but as I recall this operation scales ~log2(drive_size) in time and space, or better.

Overall: I vote for quick format.

 

[Billb2]

I use the full format for OS installs. Quick for everything else.

 

[Fox5]

You need full format to adjust the file system I believe. Like if you wanna change cluster size or something.
Otherwise, quick format is fine. You can generally assume no physical damage on a drive unless problems start occuring.

 

[RebateMonger]

Anybody know how hard drives are tested when manufactured? They've been low-level formatted as received, so I'd guess they are tested at that time for surface defects. Shipping to market could conceivably cause later damage, especially to the head(s).

Another option, if you are in a hurry for the install, is to do a Quick Format, do the install, and do a thorough overnight ScanDisk later.

 

[Nothinman]

I usually try to beatup a new drive for at least 24hrs before putting any data on it. My take is that if the drive is going to fail it'll do so pretty quickly. Since I'm not using Windows this usually equates to mkfs.xfs and then running bonnie++ benchmarks for a day.

You need full format to adjust the file system I believe. Like if you wanna change cluster size or something.

Nope, the only extra thing a full format does is a bad block check. You can set whatever cluster size you want on either format.

Otherwise, quick format is fine. You can generally assume no physical damage on a drive unless problems start occuring.

I look at it the opposite way. Drives are cheap and made even cheaper so I don't want to trust them until I've done some QA of my own.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: MichaelD


MS states:

When you choose to run a regular format on a volume, files are removed from the volume that you are formatting and the hard disk is scanned for bad sectors. The scan for bad sectors is responsible for the majority of the time that it takes to format a volume.

BS
Full format does not remove the files.
The only difference in the two is one checks for bad sectors the other doesnt.
The only way to remove the data is to write a 0 to every sector.
It doesn't even matter if you change the partition type, the data is still there unless you overwrite each sector.

Fun program to try.
Winhex.
Open any drive you formatted and look at the sectors.
Especially fun for peoples flash drives that they think are erased because they formatted them.
http://www.x-ways.net/winhex/

 

[Nothinman]

The only difference in the two is one checks for bad sectors the other doesnt.
The only way to remove the data is to write a 0 to every sector.
It doesn't even matter if you change the partition type, the data is still there unless you overwrite each sector.

And if their badblocks portion of the full format does a write, read, verify then it just overwrote all of the data.

 

[techmanc]

I always use the quick format option unless I want to check for a bad hard drive as I think the intelligence of the hard drives today they can map bad sectors on the fly!

 

[Nothinman]

I think the intelligence of the hard drives today they can map bad sectors on the fly!

While true they've only got a very limited number of spare sectors, once you start getting errors that means it's out of spares.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

The only difference in the two is one checks for bad sectors the other doesnt.
The only way to remove the data is to write a 0 to every sector.
It doesn't even matter if you change the partition type, the data is still there unless you overwrite each sector.

And if their badblocks portion of the full format does a write, read, verify then it just overwrote all of the data.

What are you talking about ?
windows does not write anything when it formats, not even in a full format.
It only checks if each sector is readable, if it isn't, it marks it as bad and moves on.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Billb2
I use the full format for OS installs. Quick for everything else.

Same here. I'll also do a slow format if the drives been in service awhile, and I haven't performed a disk check within the last 6 months or so.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

i do the opposite of what the first poster does. I say normal format when u get the drive to make sure its ok. Then only quick formats after that unless you think an issue has surfaced. I could be wrong though

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
And if their badblocks portion of the full format does a write, read, verify then it just overwrote all of the data.

If only "Full Format" was so thorough. AFAIK, all it does is issue a "read verify" command for each sector, it doesn't do any writes. Personally, I wish it would zero the disk, for security reasons.

I did an NTFS full format on my FreeAgent 500GB external HDs when I first got them. I usually don't do that though, I usually run the mfg's bootable diag software and do a read-verify pass, a SMART self-test, a write-zeros pass, another read-verify pass, and then I test it out with non-essential data for a little bit.

 

[Nothinman]

What are you talking about ?
windows does not write anything when it formats, not even in a full format.
It only checks if each sector is readable, if it isn't, it marks it as bad and moves on.

badblocks on Linux has a write mode that writes a pattern to each sector then reads it back to make sure it wrote properly and is still readable but I've never looked at a volume after a Windows full format so I don't know if it does a write, read, verify cycle for each block or not, if not then it's a pointless test.

 

[degibson]

Bloody good discussion. I didn't know that the bad block 'scan' in NTFS was read-only, thanks to those that posted that little gem.

Does anyone have any data to indicate how many hard drive errors can be detected in a once-through read-only pass?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

What are you talking about ?
windows does not write anything when it formats, not even in a full format.
It only checks if each sector is readable, if it isn't, it marks it as bad and moves on.

badblocks on Linux has a write mode that writes a pattern to each sector then reads it back to make sure it wrote properly and is still readable but I've never looked at a volume after a Windows full format so I don't know if it does a write, read, verify cycle for each block or not, if not then it's a pointless test.

Yeah, windows doesn't do it the same way.
It just goes through and tried to read each sector.
Its about like running chkdsk while you format.