Which is fastest, NTFS or FAT32?

[HarU 0]

Well, i can see that most of you don't know what your talking about. The differences between fat32 and ntfs are quite extensive, but there is one definitive reason that stands out above all. First of all, the main differences are speed, but only when accessing certain files that are stored in a b-tree as opposed to the file chain. The second is security. We all know that NTFS is more secure, hands down. But, the final and most important reason is how your data is stored.

 

Data is stored in what is called a cluster. Fat32 stores data in 32 bit clusters as opposed to NTFS's 16 bit. What this means is, if you have 18 bits worth of data to be stored, you have to use 2 separate clusters when using NTFS, because, the first cluster can only store 16 of the 18, which means that you are losing 14 bits worth of storage with the second one. Now, when you try to access that stored data, you now have to browse through 2 clusters instead of one....this will cause a slow down in performance. With Fat32, you can use your clusters and data allocation to your benefit.

 

Now that you understand how data is stored, you tell me....which one do you think is better and faster?? Fat32 is a better file system for gamers and overall data storage.

 

I hope this helps clear up some confusion.

 

-HarU

[ThePumpKinKing 0]

Ok; what HarU says about the drive clusters is correct (as far as 16k and 32k) but as far as having to scan 2 clusters/causing a slowdown, that's incorrect.

 

Nt uses an MFT (Master File Table) to keep track of the location/permissions on ALL directories and files on your disk, thus making scanning a cluster unnecessary.

 

In addition, NTFS 5 uses 32 bit clusters, so that comparison is mute (since the original question was related to Win2K).

 

And finally, the way NT handles memory management/page files and works BETTER with a fixed swap file kicks fat32's ass, since Win98 has no concept of how much of a page file it has and just keeps adding more and more crap to it. Win98 Drive performance bombs in that area.....

 

NOW wich do we think is faster & better?

 

[This message has been edited by ThePumpKinKing (edited 02 May 2000).]

 

[This message has been edited by ThePumpKinKing (edited 02 May 2000).]

[HarU 0]

Okay Pumpkin, you are right about NT's MFT, but you made a big mistake. No one ever said anything about Win98!!!! That is called an operating system pumpkin, not a file system. (in a little kid voice)

 

A file system and an operating system are wayyyy different. First of all, win98's fat32 is no where near advanced as win2ks. The file system has been improved from 95 to 98 and now to win2k. Now, win2k offers NT and Fat32. That's right...you can use fat32 on an NT platform!!!

 

Okay, and as far as the MFT goes....When the data is stored, it is stored in clusters. When it is manipulated and retrieved, thats when the MFT's memory comes into play. Still having to gather the information from the clusters. Now, logically, if you have more than one cluster to gather from, don't you think it's going to take longer??? ummmm, yes, yes it is. Oh, and i never said anything about "scanning" clusters. The slowdown comes when the retrieval of stored data comes into effect.

 

Now, on your last point. I am not sure on this one. You said that NT5 (win2k) comes with an NTFS file system that uses 32k clusters???? Considering the fact that you were comparing an outdated operating system with an new and improved file system suggests to me that you may be incorrect on this fact. And...you may be right, im not sure.

 

I do know this....for all of you dual booters out there that use win98 and win2k, in order for both operating systems to see the data stored on your partitions, your partitions need to be Fat32. You can't have icq stored on win98 with a fat32 file system, and expect to have win2k use the same program with an NTFS one. It won't work. They have to be the same.

 

If you are using win2k only, then you may want to use NTFS. Based on these arguments, you can make that decision on your own.

 

-HarU

[ThePumpKinKing 0]

Yes I realize the difference between an operating system and a file system (I didn't just spend 10 grand on an MCSE to walk out not knowing at LEAST that). The reason I mentioned Win98 is that that's how most people relate to Fat32.

 

The MFT: The MFT ONLY retrieves info as the data is initially recorded to the hard drive and/or as it changes and is moved. BROWSING FOR the cluster isn't necessary as the MFT already knows where the cluster IS. The actual RETRIEVAL of the cluster might take longer due to the 16K size. But that's where

 

NTFS 5.0 comes in. Yes, it is a totally different file system, and yes it is 32K clusters. Go try some lookups on keywords "NTFS" and "2000" on Microsoft's Technet website. It'll tell you all bout it.

 

And I'm not sure that by mentioning a one and a half year old operating system that means I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

And BTW; NTFS 5.0 CAN access FAT32 partitions, so there is no reason to do only one or the other.

 

[This message has been edited by ThePumpKinKing (edited 03 May 2000).]

[clutch 1]

Umm, I thought that the cluster size dropped with partitions size (i.e. 4k clusters in Fat32@2GB vs 16k clutstersin Fat32@9GB) and that NTFS could run lower cluster sizes at a given volume size vs. FAT16/FAT32. Plus, I thought that NTFS didn't access FAT32 like in the last post so much as the OS loads a driver to read the partition.

 

------------------

Regards,

 

clutch

[clutch 1]

Here is a link to check out;

http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/win98/Reskit/Part2/wrkc10.asp

 

While it compares FAT16 to FAT32, it illustrates the clutser concept a bit better than has been posted here. If you look at table 10-1, that is where the quick-and-dirty is on the comparison. Now, from what I have seen with NTFS, it can retain a given size cluster in even larger partitions than Win98. This is a primary reason why I use it at work on machines that have less than 30% free space available. Due to the large number of small files that a machine can have, I have regained as much as 200MB on a 2GB partition going from FAT16 to FAT32.

 

Now, here is a NTFS vs. FAT16 link;

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q140/3/65.asp

 

You can see that over 2GB, NTFS goes to 4KB and can be changed to various sizes by the user (you wont see that with FAT32). Now, as far as speed and noise, I would imagine that surfing a 12GB partition that has an extreme amount of 2K files would take an eternity with NTFS and cause a lot more noise than a FAT32 partition would. But, I prefer the superior integrity, efficiency, and security of NTFS (plus, it's still faster on my machine ).

 

------------------

Regards,

 

clutch