• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NTFS better??

D

dbarton

Senior member

I have used FAT32 for years and when I did have an NTFS drive, it lost all data in a weird crash afer a few months.

My main concern is data recovery if I have a problem, asnd with multiple drives I seem to have some major issue on a drive once ayear or so.

Am I being silly in continuing to use FAT32, and NTFS is really much better?


 
I found this article that explains it in relatively easy terms...

http://www.smartcomputing.com/.../39l01/39l01.asp&guid=

Only a part of the article comes with this link...

This is the important part (courtesy of Smart Computing):

"Pick NTFS for reliability and security. If compatibility is not a concern, you should have your computer use the NTFS file system. NTFS offers superior reliability and security. For example, it minimizes problems sector failures cause by maintaining multiple records of where the hard drive stores data. It also lets you limit access to files and folders, thereby protecting the data contained within them. Although developers designed these features to satisfy network computer users, standalone computer users can certainly take advantage of them.


Pick NTFS for storage efficiency, too. In addition to offering better reliability and security than FAT file systems, NTFS also offers excellent storage efficiency. The reason for this has a lot to do with the clusters. NTFS clusters weigh in at 4KB or smaller, whereas FAT32 clusters can reach a bulky 32KB in size.

And because cluster size affects the size of supported partitions, NTFS drives have virtually no limit on partition size. In contrast, Win2000 limits FAT32 drives to partitions of 32GB. So, when you need maximum storage space and optimum drive performance, pick NTFS.

Make the switch from FAT32 to NTFS. After some users become aware of the many advantages NTFS provides, they decide to convert their drives from the FAT32 file system to NTFS. Win2000 makes it easy to do so by providing a built-in conversion utility. You can access the utility, referred to as Convert.exe, from a command prompt.

But before you do, be sure to back up your data first. True, developers designed the file system conversion utility to convert a drive's file system without affecting the files on the drive itself. Nevertheless, you should play it safe and back up your data before running the utility. Doing so protects your files just in case anything goes wrong during the conversion.

Now, to move on with the process and access a command prompt, open the Start menu and click Programs, Accessories, and Command Prompt. In the resulting window, type convert c: /fs:ntfs (where c is the letter of the drive you want to convert), and press ENTER. This command launches the conversion utility. To complete the conversion, follow the instructions presented on-screen.

If you try to run the conversion utility on the Windows drive, you will receive a message stating that the utility cannot complete the conversion at the present time. The message will then ask if you want to schedule the conversion the next time the system restarts. Type Y for Yes and press ENTER. The conversion will continue when you reboot your computer.

Perform other conversions. Converting a drive from FAT to NTFS is relatively easy. All other conversions?including converting FAT16 to FAT32 and NTFS to FAT 32?are not.

You basically have two options for performing these conversions. The first option is free but dreadfully inconvenient because it demands that you format (a process of preparing a drive to accept data, but it erases all data from the drive) the hard drive so that you can select the desired file system when you reinstall Win2000. The second option is more convenient, but it will cost you some cash. It involves purchasing a partitioning program that supports file conversions (both PartitionMagic 8 and System Commander 7 do) and letting the utility manage the conversion for you. If you choose this option, all you'll have to do is just follow the instructions the program's users manual provides to complete the conversion."
 
NTFS has a lot more going for it over FAT32.

The time has come to move along ...jump to NTFS
(NTFS also supports bigger files, which is a plus in the video world)
 

I just made a backup on an NTFS drive , and the program made ONE file thats 100gig. That sure is scary...
 
Originally posted by: dbarton
Am I being silly in continuing to use FAT32, and NTFS is really much better?
Click to expand...

Interesting question!

I digress...

I've formatted my various USB thumb drives, over the years, using every file system - and the only one that works consistently is FAT - just regular ol' FAT...

NTFS has been the worst with thumb drives - crashing at least once a month, with daily usage.

I *suspect* NTFS works great in a perfect world, but...

I'm about ready to format the drive in this W2K Pro machine! I got the dreaded 'delayed write failure' about a month ago, and have been booting off a floppy ever since. Experience with NTFS tells me that I'm living on borrowed time.

Next time around, I'm gonna use FAT32 and see what happens - can't be any worse than NTFS, as far as I'm concerned! 😉
 
Originally posted by: VinDSL

Interesting question!

I digress...

I've formatted my various USB thumb drives, over the years, using every file system - and the only one that works consistently is FAT - just regular ol' FAT...

NTFS has been the worst with thumb drives - crashing at least once a month, with daily usage.

I *suspect* NTFS works great in a perfect world, but...

I'm about ready to format the drive in this W2K Pro machine! I got the dreaded 'delayed write failure' about a month ago, and have been booting off a floppy ever since. Experience with NTFS tells me that I'm living on borrowed time.

Next time around, I'm gonna use FAT32 and see what happens - can't be any worse than NTFS, as far as I'm concerned! 😉
Click to expand...

It's not worth the overhead on thumb drives, especially cheap ones unless you need to store a single file larger than the FAT32 limit. This wasn't even an option until recently anyway as they weren't large enough. 😉 NTFS is fine on a normal desktop, but a thumb drive it's overkill, and probably not as reliable long term due to the more volatile nature of flash memory over a standard disk.
 
Am I being silly in continuing to use FAT32, and NTFS is really much better?
Click to expand...

Very much so and yes.

I just made a backup on an NTFS drive , and the program made ONE file thats 100gig. That sure is scary...
Click to expand...

Why is one file scary and 50 little ones isn't?
 
It should only be scary if you don't have a lot of faith in the software using the file. One file is less work for the kernel and filesystem to keep track of so it's better from that perspective.
 
NTFS has been the worst with thumb drives - crashing at least once a month, with daily usage. ... I'm about ready to format the drive in this W2K Pro machine! I got the dreaded 'delayed write failure' about a month ago, and have been booting off a floppy ever since. Experience with NTFS tells me that I'm living on borrowed time.
Click to expand...

Experience tells me you've turned on write caching and are yanking the thumbdrives without going thru the 'safely remove hardware' dialog...
 
Next time around, I'm gonna use FAT32 and see what happens - can't be any worse than NTFS, as far as I'm concerned!
Click to expand...
No security, small max file size, inferior performance, no compression or encryption support...yeah, it can be a lot worse.
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
Experience tells me you've turned on write caching and are yanking the thumbdrives without going thru the 'safely remove hardware' dialog...
Click to expand...

Sorry! Wrong again!

Please stop! I'm not your typical user... I don't 'pull out' early!

I encode all my USB thumb drives with Blowfish via TrueCrypt - and run them in a RAM disk. That way, if they're lost/stolen, they're useless...

I mount/unmount my sticks properly. Even if I was stupid enough to yank one without shutting things down...

Heh! n/m

I'll tell you what, my dear friend, bsobel... if you'll pardon the pun, you're not sucking me into another fight!

*Think* what you want, bro! 😀

For everyone else, I'll let you know what happens when I go back to FATxx.

I don't have a single reason to run NTFS. I just do it out of rote, like the rest of you...
 
I don't know for sure if it's the OS or the file system, but my experience is that I saw a LOT more corrupted files and file systems with FAT than with NTFS. Since the early 2000's, I've seen almost zero corrupted NTFS drives, versus many of them when FAT was popular.

I remember when the root directory of nearly every FAT drive would have bunches of xxxxxx.chk files, created by running a chkdsk /f command to fix the file system. You just don't see that anymore. Not to mention the cross-linked files, which I NEVER see with NTFS.

And no more:

Dir c:
%4ds8@#R#$#
$asdf833.4$#@@
48s890.34r3s111/
 
Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I remember when the root directory of nearly every FAT drive would have bunches of xxxxxx.chk files, created by running a chkdsk /f command to fix the file system. You just don't see that anymore. Not to mention the cross-linked files, which I NEVER see with NTFS.
Click to expand...

You're talking about THESE THINGS right?

NTFS, BTW... 😉
 
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I remember when the root directory of nearly every FAT drive would have bunches of xxxxxx.chk files, created by running a chkdsk /f command to fix the file system. You just don't see that anymore. Not to mention the cross-linked files, which I NEVER see with NTFS.
Click to expand...

You're talking about THESE THINGS right?

NTFS, BTW... 😉
Click to expand...

Yea, chkdsk will do that on any filesystem that it supports if it finds files that got disconnected from their name. But it's a lot less likely to happen on a journaled filesystem than one that's not.
 
Can't say I've ever seen corruption on an NTFS formatted USB thumb drive. I've owned many for several years, all formatted NTFS, some heavily used. I'm not using Truecrypt or anything like that.
 
Sorry! Wrong again!
Click to expand...

I wasnt wrong the first time, remember 😉

I mount/unmount my sticks properly. Even if I was stupid enough to yank one without shutting things down...
Click to expand...

Then you really shouldnt be seeing any difference between FAT and NTFS in that regard. NTFS is MUCH more recoverable than FAT. There was a time where recovery tools just didn't exist, but that has long passed.

For everyone else, I'll let you know what happens when I go back to FATxx.
Click to expand...

You really do lose encryption, compression, auditing, streams, and rollback, previous version support, etc. Now I'm talking about your primary drive, most of us format the thumbdrives with FAT as things like ACL's usally aren't needed (and your running a file system within a file system (via Truecrypt) so you need those things even less).

I don't have a single reason to run NTFS. I just do it out of rote, like the rest of you...
Click to expand...

Its *MUCH* more reliable and recoverable than FAT. I worked on Norton Disk Doctor for both file systems, FAT sucks on modern drives (but as I said above even I use it on thumbdrives).

Re-reading your post about the delayed write failure, I misread it thinking you meant a flash drive (hence the writecaching/pull out comment). If your seeing that on your system drive then yea, image and repalce that thing ASAP. The only way that occurs is if a write operation failed. 99% of the time that indicates a failing drive (the other is the occasional bad cable or really really buggy drivers).

 
Originally posted by: nerp
Can't say I've ever seen corruption on an NTFS formatted USB thumb drive. I've owned many for several years, all formatted NTFS, some heavily used. I'm not using Truecrypt or anything like that.
Click to expand...

Given the interactions its hard to determine if that is related or not. Plenty of moving parts to debug there, but since he's using truecrypt the outer file system really doesnt matter and NTFS probably isnt worth the overhead in that case.
 

So do you all agree that for a video data drive, after a crash, I'm more likely with NTFS to recover the data than with FAT32?

Some freak thing suddenly made a drive unreadbale last week, and I had to run data recovery to get [most] of it back.

Was FAT32, now will be NTFS..



 
Originally posted by: dbarton

So do you all agree that for a video data drive, after a crash, I'm more likely with NTFS to recover the data than with FAT32?

Some freak thing suddenly made a drive unreadbale last week, and I had to run data recovery to get [most] of it back.

Was FAT32, now will be NTFS..
Click to expand...

NTFS is orders of magnitude more recoverable than FAT/FAT32 if you have the proper tools. Given its video and you probably need >4gig file support, its probably your only choice (at least in Windows file systems) available to you anyhow.
 
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I remember when the root directory of nearly every FAT drive would have bunches of xxxxxx.chk files, created by running a chkdsk /f command to fix the file system. You just don't see that anymore. Not to mention the cross-linked files, which I NEVER see with NTFS.
Click to expand...

You're talking about THESE THINGS right?

NTFS, BTW... 😉
Click to expand...

I common misconception about NTFS is that it's a fault tolerant file system that does not lose user data. This is not true. The NTFS logging capabilities ensure that the filesystem itself can return itself to a safe state after failure (for example sudden loss of power). This does not in anyway guarentee that user data isn't destroyed or lost in the rollback.

A common example is registry corruption on XP systems, people think running NTFS will prevent that in certain system crashes. But the truth is NTFS will simply guarentee to get *itself* back to a running.

User data loss with NTFS is certainly less likely than with FAT, but I like to make sure people realize the difference especially when people ask which one they should be running.
 
Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I didn't mean to imply that running Chkdsk is NEVER necessary with NTFS. Just that it's much less common now than in the days of FAT.
Click to expand...

Fair enough!

And, I didn't mean to superimpose the .chk files over the prophet Ezekiel who spent most of his time foretelling the restoration of Israel as a nation. 😉
 
Hmmm, I really don't know of any reason not to run NTSF, other than old FAT32 OS not being able to read NTSF. The degradation of flash drives using NTSF is news to me, please enlighten me on the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top