Conflicting views on NTFS vs FAT32?
NudeEmperor
more confused.
Firstly, I am a home user with no real need for NTFS security features
(although the compression facility is somewhat attractive). I'm
therefore primarily motivated by efficiency in terms of performance
and to a lesser extent, space.
I read the advice on here (from a number of posters) suggesting that
NTFS was faster so I converted my C: drive to NTFS after installing
XP. I have a dual boot with Win ME and I planned (before tonight) to
convert the remaining disks/partitions to NTFS when XP
drivers/software updates are available for everything that I use..
But then tonight I read a post referring to PC Pitstop (
www.pcpitstop.com ) where you can do an online performance checkup.
It tells me that my XP NTFS C: partition has a cached speed which is
half that of my FAT32 partitions (on the same disk) and that the
uncached speed (which I gather is the one that has a much bigger
impact on real performance) is one fifth that of the FAT32
partitions!!!!! I need to say that again: ONE FIFTH!!!!
They advise:
"One or more partitions are using the NTFS file system. Although this
file system offers many good features such as encryption and improved
security, it is generally much slower than the FAT32 file system. You
may notice a significant performance difference between FAT32 and NTFS
partitions on the same drive."
Since speed is more important to me than space (and the space savings
on NTFS over FAT32 are hardly ground shaking) should I fire up
Partition Magic and go back to FAT32?
Do these PC Pitstop people need to stop speaking through their rectums
or are some people on here using their posterior maximus as a larynx?
This does need to be sorted out becase a LOT of lurkers (like me) are
reading this newsgroup for advice and once the decision is made
there's no going back to FAT32 without forking out for a third party
partition manager or doing a complete boot partition reformat (which
means a complete XP reinstall).
NudeEmperor
System:
AMD 1Gig Athlon
ASUS A7V motherboard
512 meg ram
IBM Deskstar 75gig disk; master on primary Promise ATA100 controler
(with XP NTFS boot partition at the 'end' of the drive; and a number
of FAT32 partitions)
Seagate ST380021 80gig disk, master on secondary Promise ATA100
controler.(one FAT32 partition)
John Shaddock
While others here will give you a more expert opinion, I can tell you of my
experiences with my PII-450 home setup...
When I used to have Win2k installed on a 20GB IBM drive on an ATA-33 IDE
channel, I noticed quite a drop in speed changing from FAT32 to NTFS.
However, I recently bought a Promise ATA100 TX2 card and 40GB 60GXP IBM
drive, which I initially set up with Win2k and WinXP RC1 on FAT32
partitions. Last weekend, I gave NTFS another shot with both operating
systems. In both cases the difference was less pronounced - probably due to
the greater speed (internally, and with the ATA100 setup) of the new drive.
I know there are a lot of other factors to take into account when deciding
which to use, but with your drive setup and
faster CPU, you're not so likely to notice that much subjective speed
difference IMHO. At least you do have have Partition Magic, so you can go
back to FAT32 if you're not happy.
The only thing that might make a difference in your setup is that your NTFS
partition is at the 'end' of the drive; I believe the beginning of the drive
is the quickest...
John
<NudeEmperor> wrote in message
news:o9npstk9r5nijgv7m...@4ax.com...
TheStonge
may not be the same. There are several issues that might make NTFS slower
than FAT32. First of all, cluster size, if you have a FAT32 partition with
enourmous cluster sizes (like 32KB) compared to an NTFS with 4KB clusters or
smaller, the FAT32 can probably read a bit faster because it has to read
1/8th the amount of clusters for the same data. Also, it should be obvious
that compression will slow disk performance. And, the Indexing Service also
slows down file copying. On my C:\ drive I have turned off indexing and
compression, and use 4KB cluster sized because C: is my Operating System
drive, and it also holds all of my applications, so performance is important
on this drive. On my D: and E: drive I have 512byte clusters and
compression enabled.
NTFS is more reliable, and more secure. I recommend using NTFS, but be
aware of those elements that will slow down performance.
<NudeEmperor> wrote in message
news:o9npstk9r5nijgv7m...@4ax.com...
Cyor
>I have read almost all the posts on this subject but I'm getting even
>more confused.
>
>Firstly, I am a home user with no real need for NTFS security features
>(although the compression facility is somewhat attractive). I'm
>therefore primarily motivated by efficiency in terms of performance
>and to a lesser extent, space.
>
>They advise:
>
> "One or more partitions are using the NTFS file system. Although this
>file system offers many good features such as encryption and improved
>security, it is generally much slower than the FAT32 file system. You
>may notice a significant performance difference between FAT32 and NTFS
>partitions on the same drive."
>
>Since speed is more important to me than space (and the space savings
>on NTFS over FAT32 are hardly ground shaking) should I fire up
>Partition Magic and go back to FAT32?
>
>Do these PC Pitstop people need to stop speaking through their rectums
>or are some people on here using their posterior maximus as a larynx?
>
There are many more factors at play than just the file systems.
cluster size, fragmentation, type of test, measured parameters and
their weight, etc, etc, etc.
I don't know if "PCPitStop" has any particular axe to grind or not.
But rather than take their word, or anybody else's, you should do some
studying of what factors affect performance of the disk subsystem.
Then obtain a benchmark program or two, run your own tests simulating
as closely as possible the type of transfers the disk subsystem will
typically be asked to perform, then decide for yourself.
Impartiality aside, allow me to briefly recommend the NTFS file
system. If your results show the two systems within single digit
percentages of each other, as current opinion seems to indicate, NTFS
is vastly superior, even for a sing user with "no need for NTFS
security", and should be chosen unless F32 is absolutely required.
--
Cheers
Cyor - Create Your Own Reality
[Bob Young]
Image Processing Silicon