NTFS vs. FAT32

[Cogman]

I had a nice conversation with a guy on the TechTv Forums. They all had the Idea that NTFS was more a corperation file system then a little user file system. I though they where wrong. Here is what was said...


Cogman: I have to add this. MOST everything said about NTFS and Fat32 was true however, NTFS does infact preform better the Fat32. The fact that when you have all the features on (encryption especially) it is a little slower then Fat32 is not a good enough resion for me to say that you should go with Fat32 if you want speed. Fat32 is also more prone to corruption then NTFS.

jt0x: And NTFS is harder to use in DOS in case of a system failure. NTFS adversly affects the operations of some programs when those programs aren't fully supported for NTFS. NTFS may be better for corporations that actually need whatever slight advantages NTFS "may" give, but the average user is better off using FAT32.

and now, my final post to reply to jt0x, (kindof ranting, but i belive that I stated only facts still)

Cogman: 1st off, (being a programmer), Saying that some programs wont run on NTFS because they are incompadible with the file system is complete and total hog wash. The only time you do run into problems with programs and NTFS is when the os does not support all the API calls of said program (windows 2000 and NT had this problem) in which case it is not a problem with NTFS, but the OS itself. If your statment "NTFS adversly affects the operations of some programs" where true, then we Could not use CD's as they are a diffrent file system then FAT32, they use an ISO file system. There is no special code that you have to type in to make a program NTFS compadible, and there is no NTFS compiler you need to use to make it work. (wine would be a complete failure because, it is running programs from a FAT32 system to a ext3 system, EXTREMELY diffrent file systems). Though I must say that it is harder to use in the case of a system failure, because the boot disks microsoft gives you dont support a NTFS file system (making it so the Disk cant read the HardDrive). However, Im not ever completly sure on this. There is no "May" about it, NTFS has been tried and tested to show that it "does" give preformance boosts especially when dealing with large files. This makes it an Ideal file system for a Gamer because it is able to access the level and game files quicker then a FAT32 would be able to.

 

[spyordie007]

Actually you can boot into system recovery mode from the 2K/XP CDs and it will allow you command line access with NTFS support. If you want DOS you can also use NTFS-DOS or one of the dozens of similar products.

I would agree that the "basic home-based end users will likely rarely know the differance", at least not until their entire file system gets corrupt...

And just to nitpik:

NTFS may be better for corporations that actually need whatever slight advantages NTFS "may" give

I would argue that anyone who uses their computer for anything they dont want to loose (and that includes the home users who have quicken) that NTFS is a must if nothing else because it's a journalized file system (or at least partially journalized). Once more where NTFS may be slightly slower in limited situations any computer that has several thousands of files (and just about all of them do) will run faster on NTFS, this will become increasingly obvious as the numbers of files that you have increase.

Oh well, guys like these are a dime a dozen, is he a per chance consultant?

-Spy

 

[firewall]

Being a home user, using WinXP and Win98, I haven't noticed any big differences between the systems except that Norton Utilities has more options (programs and utilities) for FAT32 - win98 than NTFS - WinXP.

 

[Cogman]

actually, the way he was talking I wouldnt be surprized if he was one of the cast members (which just makes me laugh), Just watching that one show seam to cause my IQ to drop. the host is a mac user (Im sorry, but I dislike macs about as much as I dislike Microsoft) and he is giving windows help, I had a post deleted because when they where mentioning sites to buy computers from they (probibly not paid) did no mention reseller ratings.

 

[owensdj]

Cogman, your reply was right on target. That jt0x person was probably a kid who thinks he knows something about computers because he plays games on them all of the time.

 

[spyordie007]

NTFS would be better for playing games because with most games there are tons of small files that have to get referenced, the very way NTFS keeps track of its files would result in better level loading speed...

-Spy

 

[Flatline]

If you want to reference tons of small files, reiser and XFS are fantastic...oh, wait - this is about Windows ;-)
In that case, NTFS is far superior.

 

[n0cmonkey]

That guy is an idiot, ignore him.

 

[Wallysaurus]

While I am running NTFS on all of my home computers and generally agree with what you have stated, There are problems with some applications on NTFS file systems. I work for a fairly large company (~22,000 devices and ~30,000 users) and we are prohibited from using NTFS on most of our equipment. Several of the older comercial applications and a few of the in-house apps just won't run properly on PC's formatted NTFS. Take the same hardware and the same combination of applications that won't run properly on an NTFS partition and re-image the machine with FAT32 and all problems disapear.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Wallysaurus
While I am running NTFS on all of my home computers and generally agree with what you have stated, There are problems with some applications on NTFS file systems. I work for a fairly large company (~22,000 devices and ~30,000 users) and we are prohibited from using NTFS on most of our equipment. Several of the older comercial applications and a few of the in-house apps just won't run properly on PC's formatted NTFS. Take the same hardware and the same combination of applications that won't run properly on an NTFS partition and re-image the machine with FAT32 and all problems disapear.

I'll bet if the permissions were set up correctly you wouldnt have any problems running your software on NTFS drives, unless of course you have some kind of low-level format/defrag/drive access utility...

-Spy

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Flatline
If you want to reference tons of small files, reiser and XFS are fantastic...oh, wait - this is about Windows ;-)
In that case, NTFS is far superior.

You zelots always have to jump in dont you?

-Spy

 

[Flatline]

But of course!

It was a joke anyway (guess sarcasm doesn't come through well in text). In my experience, NTFS is much more stable (and in most cases faster) than FAT32.

 

[Nothinman]

You zelots always have to jump in dont you?

Sure, why not. Anyway there might be a reiserfs port to NT if the stupid IFS development kit didn't cost $899.

 

[owensdj]

Wallysaurus, that's weird. Are those DOS applications that have a problem with NTFS?

 

[jmatt]

FAT and NTFS performance
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/index3.html
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/columns/russel/october01.asp
http://www.thundercloud.net/information-avenue/ntfs-vs-fat32/
http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/storage/ntfs-preinstall.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/...oc/en/choosing_between_NTFS_FAT_and_FAT32.asp
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314463
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;310525
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/en/server/help/choosing_between_NTFS_FAT_and_FAT32.htm
http://members.aol.com/midnightdreary/filesystems.htm

 

[ITJunkie]

Let's not forget that NTFS also gives you file-level security where Fat32 does not.
My 2 pennies

 

[AndyHui]

The AnandTech FAQ: FAT32 vs NTFS gives you more than enough justification that NTFS is superior.

 

[Cogman]

Though you guys Said to Ignore him, I have to post this, This was the following message that he posted claiming that I am Da St00p. You'll love this.

"I am a programmer as well, as are millions of people worldwide, so saying youre a programmer is certainly not a symbol of status or intelligence or knowledge. I've coded at least one program before that did not correctly work when interacting with an NTFS drive, and I had to modify the code to specifically detect NTFS or FAT32 and run the appropriate code based on the filesystem.

Further, you'd see that my "NTFS adversly affects the operations of some programs" in no way had anything to do with CD's or other filesystems. It was a direct comment about *some* PROGRAMS."

LOL, All I had to respond with is a prove it message basicly asking for the code that he has supposidly written. Heck, Ill just stop doing this now and give you a link to the thread for you enjoyment. TechTv

 

[spyordie007]

maybe his program was a defragger?

sigh, I'm glad it's just about the weekend...

-Spy

 

[Nothinman]

maybe his program was a defragger?

I can't imagine someone trying to write any filesystem utilities without realizing they need to figure out the filesystem type first.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

maybe his program was a defragger?

I can't imagine someone trying to write any filesystem utilities without realizing they need to figure out the filesystem type first.

My point was just that there are some programs that need to be written for the specific file system(s) it will get used on (although they are the minority).

But yes like you suggested if he was writing one of those programs I would like to think that he would know that to begin with.

-Spy

 

[tinyabs]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie
Let's not forget that NTFS also gives you file-level security where Fat32 does not.
My 2 pennies

The file-level security is tied to the registry. That's when things gets dicey. When I reinstall WinXP over Win2K, the owner names becomes GUIDs and I can't access some of my folders.


Originally, NTFS was evolved from HPFS (OS/2) when WinNT 3.51 was released. It was designed for robustness and security in mind. FAT on the other hand was 2 decades back designed for 360Kb floppy disk and 10Meg harddisk. FAT32 and VFAT was evolved only to accomodate disk size limitation. So it's two different beasts we are talking about.

The programmers of FAT, NTFS, EXT3 or other filesystems are sure to offer 99% efficiency; conversely, it's the effectiveness(relevant features) we are talking about here. Perhaps FAT32 is 2-3% faster than NTFS but NTFS offers robustness, less wastage and security and also FAT32 is inefficient in terms of disk allocation.

I'm sure there won't be a need for FAT64 anymore.

 

[spyordie007]

Just to nitpick:

The programmers of FAT, NTFS, EXT3 or other filesystems are sure to offer 99% efficiency

Let me give you a 30GB FAT16 drive with any volume of files and I'll let you explain to me why it is 99% efficient.

Perhaps FAT32 is 2-3% faster than NTFS

Actually this is rarely the case, in most situations NTFS is faster. This becomes incresingly apparent when you have drives with many thousands (or more) of files.

I'm sure there won't be a need for FAT64 anymore.

I wasnt aware that such a thing ever had a use in the first place, it's never been "part of Windows"

-Spy

 

[Nothinman]

The file-level security is tied to the registry

Not at all. The file-level security is attached to the file in the filesystem, the registry isn't involved. The SAM is involved, but only because it matches SIDs to usernames.

When I reinstall WinXP over Win2K, the owner names becomes GUIDs and I can't access some of my folders.

Because new SIDs are generated for the different users, just take ownership of the files and change the ACLs.

Perhaps FAT32 is 2-3% faster than NTFS but NTFS offers robustness, less wastage and security and also FAT32 is inefficient in terms of disk allocation.

FAT is usually slower because it fragments easier an that causes more seeks which are the main bottleneck on any disk. The only thing that might be slower with NTFS is the original open() call because of the security checks, but everything else is faster.

 

[tinyabs]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
Just to nitpick:

The programmers of FAT, NTFS, EXT3 or other filesystems are sure to offer 99% efficiency

Let me give you a 30GB FAT16 drive with any volume of files and I'll let you explain to me why it is 99% efficient.

Perhaps FAT32 is 2-3% faster than NTFS

Actually this is rarely the case, in most situations NTFS is faster. This becomes incresingly apparent when you have drives with many thousands (or more) of files.

I'm sure there won't be a need for FAT64 anymore.

I wasnt aware that such a thing ever had a use in the first place, it's never been "part of Windows"

-Spy

Unfortunately, a 30Gb volume won't work with FAT16. That's is now the question of effectiveness. In other words, Fat12 offers 99% efficiency for 1.44Mb disk. For a 30Gb FAT32 with ten thousand files in a "single folder". It will be slow. Sorry, I didn't mention 99% efficiency under limitation. For FAT64, if exist in future, it will be considered at inefficient.

NTFS is faster because of Indexing Service, so you are right about this point. And my answer to your question is that WinFS is 99% efficient for maybe a 1TB disk with million files.

PS: Efficiency means doing the job right. Effectiveness means doing the right job.