NTFS vs FAT32

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sickizblank

Contributor
Just something I read , found it kind of useful. Hence posted.

NTFS vs. FAT32

It's often asked; FAT32 or NTFS? Windows XP pushes you towards NTFS due to artificial limitations of its setup tools, and NT advocates nearly always say "use NTFS it's more secure". But you may want to think a bit further than that glib knee-jerk advice.

Executive summary

NTFS is a better file system, but the available maintenance tools and options suck.

Either choice, you will win some and lose some.

Detail

FATxx is an old file system that is simple, well-documented, readable from a large number of OSs, and supported by a wide range of tools.

NTFS is a newer file system that is feature-rich, proprietary, undocumented at the raw bytes level, and subject to change - even within Service Packs of the same OS version.

Keeping NTFS proprietary allows Microsoft to root NT's security features deep within the file system itself, but it does cast doubts about the reliability and version-compatibility of third-party support. Without an official maintenance OS from Microsoft, one is forced to look to 3rd-party solutions, and the high stakes involved make FUD about accuracy of NTFS support a serious issue.

You are obliged to use FATxx if you need access from DOS mode or Win9x, e.g. in a dual-boot scenario.

You are obliged to use NTFS if you need support for files over 4G in size, hard drives over 137G in size, and/or you need to implement some of NT's security management that devolves down to NTFS.

Else, weigh up the pros and cons, and remember you can use multiple volumes, with different file systems for each. Even FAT16 has niche strengths (small FAT, large cluster size, easier data recovery) that may make it attractive for certain types of content.

More detail

NTFS may be faster...

- smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM

- indexed design more efficient for many files per directory

- small file data embedded in dir level, avoids seek to data chain

- above factors make fragmentation less onerous than for FATxx

- 4k cluster size matches processor's natural paging size

...or slower...

- extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption

- small clusters may fragment data cluster chains

NTFS may be safer...

- transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations

- file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.

- automatically "fixes" failing clusters on the fly (controversial)

...or more at risk...

- no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS

- no maintenance OS for NTFS

- malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty

- transaction rollback does not preserve user data

- transaction rollback does not help other causes of corruption

- more limited range of maintenance tools

- automatically "fixes" failing clusters on the fly (controversial)

NTFS may be more space-efficient...

- smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G

- may include data of small files within the directory level

- NTFS's bitmap structure is smaller than FAT32's dual FAT

- sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage

...or less so...

- NTFS has large MFT structure

- larger per-file directory metadata space

I would use NTFS where:

* Users have professional-grade IT admin, including backup

* Users need to hide data more than they need to salvage it

* Applications require files over 4G in size

* Hard drive exceeds the 137G barrier

But while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...

* Data can easily be recovered

* File system structure can be manually checked and repaired

* Malware can be scanned for and cleaned

Conclusion - Avoid the use of NTFS in consumer PCs.
Click to expand...
 
KingKrool said:
Excuse me while I laugh hysterically.
Click to expand...

Is it necessary for you to post where it isn't required for you to post? :S

If you cannot appreciate it or even if you know the stuff already you can always appreciate the person
 
For me its simple

I have 150+ HD movies (4.2 gb - 12 gb ) and 50+ Game ISOs each above 4gb.... :P....

So its not even a remote option.... :P
 
sickizblank said:
Is it necessary for you to post where it isn't required for you to post? :S

If you cannot appreciate it or even if you know the stuff already you can always appreciate the person
Click to expand...

From the above comment i assume you don't have an idea who this guys is ( "KingKrool" )

:rofl:
 
Have you posted a source? In the absence of a source, I can only assume you came up with this yourself, which would obviously make me laugh. The arguments are silly beyond belief apart from the one which mentions unsuitability on tiny drives (the like of which are not even available as thumb drives nowadays). If you had posted a source, I would have laughed hysterically at the origin.

P.S. If you want something other than NTFS, try ExFAT.
 
^^

O EM EF GEE

"Just something I read , found it kind of useful. Hence posted."

Didn't you get that?

I had it saved as .txt in my hdd. I reinstalled windows like 2 days back and it was saved. I had absolutely no idea where it was from.

Read before you post. FFS!

PS - Why only your assumptions are that way. Everyone else it pretty much normal.
 
I can hardly comment as to why others didn't think the same way as me. Half of the pros of NTFS listed here aren't even taking everything into account (cluster size is really not the only issue here, rather it is the inability to have constant cluster sizes across filesystems).

I critique things which are completely unfounded, and most of this article is. NTFS doesn't have scandisk? Guess what, it doesn't need scandisk. That is the whole point of NTFS - you no longer need to scan the whole disk to find errors. Rather, chkdsk can do the job just by looking at the transaction log, MFT and only in the worst case go to the rest of the disk (usually in the case of really bad data corruption). Malware protection? ACLs have to do with user permissions not malware. User permissions are used to protect against persistent malware, but that is only a tiny part of it. The worm mentioned (Witty) did not at any time break through NTFS's ACLs/user permissions - it broke a piece of software that already had the necessary privileges. Lack of recovery tools - false again, I have used, and love GetDataBack for NTFS. I've had much more success with it than I had in the past with FAT tools, but that may just be because this particular one was well written. "Transaction rollback doesn't prevent other causes of corruption" - true, but nothing in FAT prevents any cause of corruption. I can go on and on.

FAT has its uses - in small removable drives, where ExFAT is not an option. Not for the reasons the author lists.

Now you know why I can't stop laughing - quite simply putting it, I find the article is amusing.
 
ok... sorry I don't want to start something either... but I have to agree with KingKrool this info is outdated and quite incomplete and doesn't even take into consideration that as a file system NTFS has evolved considerably since Windows 2000 days. lol... it is a little amusing :P
 
KingKrool said:
NTFS doesn't have scandisk? Guess what, it doesn't need scandisk. That is the whole point of NTFS - you no longer need to scan the whole disk to find errors. Rather, chkdsk can do the job just by looking at the transaction log, MFT and only in the worst case go to the rest of the disk (usually in the case of really bad data corruption).
Click to expand...

I've had a lot of issues just trying to get CHKDSK to run on my HDDs with NTFS. The dirty bit mysteriously just does not get cleared even after the typical Microsoft maneuver(restart). And the absence of good 3rd party tools to fix logical or physical HDD errors with the NT File System is something I find appalling. To be honest, I miss something like scandisk for FAT32 with NTFS HDDs.

On the other hand though, I've found it to be much less error prone vs FAT32. i.e I've had my HDDs with NTFS survive many power outages during downloads still retaining the data intact.
 
KingKrool said:
Now you know why I can't stop laughing - quite simply putting it, I find the article is amusing.
Click to expand...

I dont know man...I had similar experience like you, then like you ended up explaining the gory details. At such time, I just move on. But yeah I wanted to:

:rofl: :rofl:

~LT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom