Going back to FAT32 from NTFS using Maxtor MaxBlast

[KentW]

I'm going to format and install XP Pro on NTFS. Currently I have WinME on FAT32. If I decide to go back to FAT32, can I use MaxBlast Plus from Maxtor to reformat my Maxtor drive back to FAT32? Thanks, Kent

 

[bozo1]

No need to use maxblast. If you want to go from NTFS to Fat32, you can use Partition Magic or you can just have the XP install reformat it FAT32 when you reinstall.

 

[KentW]

Thanks, but I can use MaxBlast if I want to, correct?

 

[bozo1]

If you want.

 

[KentW]

Thanks Bozo! I appreciate the help. Think I'll make the "jump" to NTFS, XP Pro tomorrow. Kent

 

[n0cmonkey]

There are absolutely no reasons to use FAT32 when you are using a modern OS.

 

[Netopia]

There are absolutely no reasons to use FAT32 when you are using a modern OS.

Actually, I struggle with this one. I prefer NTFS because it is a more stable and robust FS than FAT. OTOH, I've got some servers that I built with a 2 GB Fat16 Boot/System drive and over the last couple of years, on occasion I would install a driver or piece of software (InCD in one case) that the system didn't like and it would simply blue sceen and not let me boot. Because it was FAT, I was able to boot from a floppy and simply remove the offending file. Upon reboot, the OS complained that the file was missing but booted fine, which gave me the oportunity to uninstall the program and get back to a normal stability.

Contrary to that, I've had occasion where something was misbehaved and the boot/system partition was NTFS. In that case (only happen once) I was SOL since I couldn't get at anything. I was able to restore from a ghost and then restore the more recent files from backup, but had it been a workstation instead of a server (no backups), I would have been totally SOL.

Just my thoughts...

Joe

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Netopia

There are absolutely no reasons to use FAT32 when you are using a modern OS.

Actually, I struggle with this one. I prefer NTFS because it is a more stable and robust FS than FAT. OTOH, I've got some servers that I built with a 2 GB Fat16 Boot/System drive and over the last couple of years, on occasion I would install a driver or piece of software (InCD in one case) that the system didn't like and it would simply blue sceen and not let me boot. Because it was FAT, I was able to boot from a floppy and simply remove the offending file. Upon reboot, the OS complained that the file was missing but booted fine, which gave me the oportunity to uninstall the program and get back to a normal stability.

Contrary to that, I've had occasion where something was misbehaved and the boot/system partition was NTFS. In that case (only happen once) I was SOL since I couldn't get at anything. I was able to restore from a ghost and then restore the more recent files from backup, but had it been a workstation instead of a server (no backups), I would have been totally SOL.

Just my thoughts...

Joe

FAT is deprecated and does not provide any of the features you should be using in today's computing environment. I understand how a little "this is easier" can make things seem better, but I disagree with the thought. FAT may be easier, but without basic security and other features that make a robust file system, it is useless.

 

[Nothinman]

NTFS4DOS, there's a write version that doesn't cost too much.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Netopia

There are absolutely no reasons to use FAT32 when you are using a modern OS.

Actually, I struggle with this one. I prefer NTFS because it is a more stable and robust FS than FAT. OTOH, I've got some servers that I built with a 2 GB Fat16 Boot/System drive and over the last couple of years, on occasion I would install a driver or piece of software (InCD in one case) that the system didn't like and it would simply blue sceen and not let me boot. Because it was FAT, I was able to boot from a floppy and simply remove the offending file. Upon reboot, the OS complained that the file was missing but booted fine, which gave me the oportunity to uninstall the program and get back to a normal stability.

Contrary to that, I've had occasion where something was misbehaved and the boot/system partition was NTFS. In that case (only happen once) I was SOL since I couldn't get at anything. I was able to restore from a ghost and then restore the more recent files from backup, but had it been a workstation instead of a server (no backups), I would have been totally SOL.

Just my thoughts...

Joe

While I doubt that your server(s) were crashing because you were using FAT n0cmonkey is right in that you would really want to use NTFS for ALL modern windows based systems including servers. Why on earth you would want to run your server on a FS that doesnt support ACLs is beyond me.

-Spy

 

[Netopia]

Why on earth you would want to run your server on a FS that doesnt support ACLs is beyond me.

If I understand your statement, I guess my answer would be because there is enough physical security around the boxes in question that I don't have to worry about it. Couple that with the fact that we are talking about servers that have virtually no sensitive data of any kind on them....

NTFS4DOS, there's a write version that doesn't cost too much.

You know... I looked at that product a couple of years ago... and promptly forgot that it was out there! I would say that doing a FAT->NTFS conversion and buying NTFS4DOS is probably the direction I'll go.

Thanks,

Joe

 

[spyordie007]

I'm not refuring to anything that will give you an extra level of physical security (like somebody cloning the disk) since physical security is number 1 on the list. I was refuring to the fact that you can settup a far more robust ACL on just about anything.

If you are using IIS you can setup a good ACL rather than just a yes/no checkbox on the ability to write. Or if you use file/shares you have so much more power over the ACL by controling it in the NTFS permissions and not the share itself.

Not to mention the fact that there are a good number of services that wont run on a server unless it is NTFS (such as Active Directory or Exchange, I think SQL server 2000 as well but cant remember for sure).

-Spy

 

[Netopia]

spyordie007,

Again, I'm just talking about a 2 Gig boot/system partition. There are no shares and these machines (there are only a couple) don't run IIS. They are mostly file servers for users' shares. The shares themselves are all on NTFS partitions.

Joe

 

[spyordie007]

The shares themselves are all on NTFS partitions.

Good deal, than I guess in your case it doesnt really make too much of a differance...

-Spy

 

[Netopia]

....I guess in your case it doesnt really make too much of a differance...

Yeah, that's how I saw it. But, as a couple of you have pointed out, NTFS is still better and with the write ability of NTFS4DOS, my only detractor is removed!

Joe

 

[Mrburns2007]

Be warned that converting a already FAT32 to NTFS under windows will use 512 byte chunk instead of 4K, which is suppose to be slow.


Best to do it with a fresh installation of Windows XP.

 

[johnlog]

Nocmonkey,

>There are absolutely no reasons to use FAT32 when you are using a modern OS. <<<

You are probably correct. I installed XP Pro over ME and that has worked perfectly. XP Pro continued to recognize all my installed programs without any problems. Plus I kept it at FAT32 and I have not had a single hard driver error since XP Pro was released.

I am sure NTFS is a more secure format but I find FAT32 does work quite well on a 40 gig drive.

 

[Nothinman]

I am sure NTFS is a more secure format but I find FAT32 does work quite well on a 40 gig drive.

It's not even that it's more secure, it's more effecient, stable and less fragile. FAT is deprecated, even MS wants you to move on.

 

[johnlog]

>It's not even that it's more secure, it's more effecient, stable and less fragile. FAT is deprecated, even MS wants you to move on. <<<

Yes, it has smaller byte sized spaces for saving info on. Has less slack space lost. NTFS is more secure in that it puts up a mirror image of the NTFS so if a failure happens it can use the mirror image so you get a feeling of security. That is why you have so much less available space for installing programs and saving data on.

 

[Nothinman]

Yes, it has smaller byte sized spaces for saving info on

Not really. You can choose the cluster size at format time, otherwise it'll default to 4K which is fine for 99% of the cases.

That is why you have so much less available space for installing programs and saving data on.

So much? It's a few Megs at most, if you're that concerned about a few Megs you've got other things to worry about besides which filesystem to use.

 

[prosaic]

Not knocking the NTFS for DOS utility (Those guys at Sysinternals REALLY know what they're doing.), but it really isn't needed with Windows 2000 and Windows XP if you've got your ducks lined up. When the appropriate policy is applied the recovery console can get you access to anything than NTFSDOS can get for you. Why would people insist on using a DOS recovery diskette when much more powerful tools for recovery are shipped with the OS?

- prosaic

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: prosaic
Not knocking the NTFS for DOS utility (Those guys at Sysinternals REALLY know what they're doing.), but it really isn't needed with Windows 2000 and Windows XP if you've got your ducks lined up. When the appropriate policy is applied the recovery console can get you access to anything than NTFSDOS can get for you. Why would people insist on using a DOS recovery diskette when much more powerful tools for recovery are shipped with the OS?

- prosaic

Because they do not know any better. Because they are lazy and do not want to learn something a little newer. Because technology scares them. Because they think they know the best way to do these things, even when the manufacturer tells them differently.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: johnlog
>It's not even that it's more secure, it's more effecient, stable and less fragile. FAT is deprecated, even MS wants you to move on. <<<

Yes, it has smaller byte sized spaces for saving info on. Has less slack space lost. NTFS is more secure in that it puts up a mirror image of the NTFS so if a failure happens it can use the mirror image so you get a feeling of security. That is why you have so much less available space for installing programs and saving data on.

You can get, what, a 200GB hard drive these days? I know the warez/mp3/pr0n kids might need more than 198gB or whatever, but most people don't.

 

[Netopia]

Because they do not know any better. Because they are lazy and do not want to learn something a little newer. Because technology scares them. Because they think they know the best way to do these things, even when the manufacturer tells them differently.

I'm all ears. I'm ready to learn and to move forward! Point me in the direction of where you guys think I should read. BTW... I hope none of you have simply made the ASSumption that I'm using 2000/XP. All of these servers in question are NT4/SP6a and the company isn't in a financial situation to upgrade.... so.... I don't want to be too lazy or stupid, so how do I do the things you speak of with my current setup?

Joe

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Because they do not know any better. Because they are lazy and do not want to learn something a little newer. Because technology scares them. Because they think they know the best way to do these things, even when the manufacturer tells them differently.

I'm all ears. I'm ready to learn and to move forward! Point me in the direction of where you guys think I should read. BTW... I hope none of you have simply made the ASSumption that I'm using 2000/XP. All of these servers in question are NT4/SP6a and the company isn't in a financial situation to upgrade.... so.... I don't want to be too lazy or stupid, so how do I do the things you speak of with my current setup?

Joe

As far as docs go:
Read the FAQs here on NTFS (link to FAQs in my sig)
Search on microsoft.com

Im not a Windows guy, so I cant answer the "WTF can I do with this NT crap?" question (crap is my opinion and may not be shared by everyone else, so disregard it if you are wrong and like NT)