Solve : FAT32 vs. NTFS?

1.	Solve : FAT32 vs. NTFS?
Answer» I have a Western Digital EXTERNAL (USB) HD I need to REFORMAT, after using Active File Recovery to scrape off what's left on it. (Running XP SP2). I know there's been debate about which is "better" - FAT32 or NTFS. Please make your case below for one vs. the other - in "plain" English! Thanks!FAT32 on Wikipedia NTFS on Wikipedia Both articles seem to say a lot about the benefits and drawbacks of each.But I wanted a fight! ETA: Thanks, read them, still not sure which is best. Basically, I'm archiving stuff I don't use everyday - BitTorrented TV shows I haven't watched yet, LPs that I've ripped, but I'm also using it as storage for my backups. I THOUGHT it was FAT32, but when I ran File Recovery on it, it found lots of partitions, some FAT and some NTFS. (Screenshot below) I just want something stable. It SOUNDS like FAT32 is the way to go, for simplicity, but as each backup rewrites over previous ones, it sounds like it's gonna get really fragmented - and having to defrag my backups sounds like a recipe for disaster, so perhaps NTFS is the way to go...? Quote But I wanted a fight! Lol. NTFS - RAW phenomenon. First blood!You have a lot of partitions! What are they all used for? Personally I would advise you to use NTFS for general purpose. I have never encountered this RAW problem myself, so I cannot say how likely it is to be a problem. Bear in mind that FAT32 has a file size limit of, I think, 2gb (possibly less) which may cause a problem with large backup files. Also, it lacks some of encyrption features of NTFS, if you want to protect your data this way. I think NTFS also manages large partitions more efficiently than FAT32, but you'd have to look up this one. Please note that Windows 98 / ME or lower cannot access NTFS, only FAT. If you will be using any of those operating systems, then FAT is your only option. As for disk fragmentation, I don't know anything about one getting more fragmented than the other. But if that issue concerns you, and you are not satisfied with the built-in Windows defragmenter, I can recommend Diskeeper Professional Edition.I don't know how it got so many partitions - I never reformatted/repartitioned it. (Read the original "HD went kaput" thread... it's all very strange). If you look, it's lots of crazy stuff too, I mean the partitions total to like 700GB on an 80GB drive... But I was able to get most of my documents off in "one" piece. (So I'm very happy with Active File Recovery - it was about the fourth or fifth software I tried.) I only brought up the fragmenting based on the articles referenced above. I would just think that defragging a backup would invite problems that I otherwise might not have? I'm not worried about encryption - the only way PEOPLE would have access to the data would be if they broke into my house. At that point, unwatched episodes of "The Wire" seem hardly worth the worry, comparitively. The ONLY issue that might come up is, lately I have had some trouble with my laptops and have found "Live" Linux discs very very helpful. It sounds like NTFS would be a problem here, right? And what's the RAW phenomenon? Quote You have a lot of partitions! What are they all used for? Personally I would advise you to use NTFS for general purpose. I have never encountered this RAW problem myself, so I cannot say how likely it is to be a problem. Bear in mind that FAT32 has a file size limit of, I think, 2gb (possibly less) which may cause a problem with large backup files. Also, it lacks some of encyrption features of NTFS, if you want to protect your data this way. [highlight]I think NTFS also manages large partitions more efficiently than FAT32, but you'd have to look up this one.[/highlight] Please note that Windows 98 / ME or lower cannot access NTFS, only FAT. If you will be using any of those operating systems, then FAT is your only option. As for disk fragmentation, I don't know anything about one getting more fragmented than the other. But if that issue concerns you, and you are not satisfied with the built-in Windows defragmenter, I can recommend Diskeeper Professional Edition. I agree with Neil. And, I highlighted the comment on large partitions; by default, NTFS uses a cluster size of 4KB, much smaller than what FAT32 uses, which is usually 32KB. This results in more efficient use of drive space, especially if you have a lot of small files. Files smaller than the cluster size still consume a cluster. In other words, if a 1 KB file resides in a 32 KB cluster, 31 KB are wasted. However, I have both FAT32 and NTFS partitions since I have a dual-boot configuration for Win 98SE and Win XP. I keep many files (Word, Excel, ETC.) on a FAT32 partition because both OS can see them.Alright, I'm going with NTFS. If anything goes wrong, I'm blaming you guys. That's a shame about the COWS. Quote The ONLY issue that might come up is, lately I have had some trouble with my laptops and have found "Live" Linux discs very very helpful. It sounds like NTFS would be a problem here, right? Well, if you want to be able to do this, you may want to go with FAT32. I haven't used Linux, but plan to delve into it soon. GX1_MAN would probably have a comment on this if he drops by. I recall various postings by him about using a Linux live disc to obtain files from a Windows OS drive that has become unbootable. I'd be concerned about your partition problem. That many partitions on a single drive cannot be right, especially if they total more than the drive's capacity. If the drive has nothing of value on it, I would be tempted to delete ALL partitions on that harddrive and start all over again. Or this partition problem might cause another problem when you run out of "real" space, yet your computer thinks it can still store more data. I have never used this utility in the screenshot before - are all of those from your extertnal harddrive? Open up My Computer and give us the details of all the drives you see in there. Post a screenshot if you want.Well, I did a Quck Format last night - XP forces you to go NTFS. But, the whole reason why I got to Active File Recovery is because the drive was unreadable, from XP, Linux, UBCD4WIN, etc. I can still reformat as FAT32, if I like (which is why I'm soliciting opinions). I copied everything from the recovery to a 160GB HD on loan. I'm copying everything back to the reformatted 80, then going to use UBCD4WIN to restore onto a laptop from a backup on the USB HD. THEN, BEFORE I return the 160, I'm going to have to decide whether or not to keep the 80 as FAT32 or NTFS. It sounds like I'm going to stay NTFS, if the ONLY drawback is its inability to be read in Linux. I only use Linux at crisis times, but, then again, that's the only time I NEED this HD to work.

Answer»

I have a Western Digital EXTERNAL (USB) HD I need to REFORMAT, after using Active File Recovery to scrape off what's left on it. (Running XP SP2).

I know there's been debate about which is "better" - FAT32 or NTFS.

Please make your case below for one vs. the other - in "plain" English!

Thanks!FAT32 on Wikipedia
NTFS on Wikipedia
Both articles seem to say a lot about the benefits and drawbacks of each.But I wanted a fight!

ETA:
Thanks, read them, still not sure which is best. Basically, I'm archiving stuff I don't use everyday - BitTorrented TV shows I haven't watched yet, LPs that I've ripped, but I'm also using it as storage for my backups.

I THOUGHT it was FAT32, but when I ran File Recovery on it, it found lots of partitions, some FAT and some NTFS. (Screenshot below)

I just want something stable. It SOUNDS like FAT32 is the way to go, for simplicity, but as each backup rewrites over previous ones, it sounds like it's gonna get really fragmented - and having to defrag my backups sounds like a recipe for disaster, so perhaps NTFS is the way to go...?

Quote

But I wanted a fight!

Lol.
NTFS - RAW phenomenon.
First blood!You have a lot of partitions! What are they all used for?

Personally I would advise you to use NTFS for general purpose. I have never encountered this RAW problem myself, so I cannot say how likely it is to be a problem. Bear in mind that FAT32 has a file size limit of, I think, 2gb (possibly less) which may cause a problem with large backup files. Also, it lacks some of encyrption features of NTFS, if you want to protect your data this way. I think NTFS also manages large partitions more efficiently than FAT32, but you'd have to look up this one.

Please note that Windows 98 / ME or lower cannot access NTFS, only FAT. If you will be using any of those operating systems, then FAT is your only option.

As for disk fragmentation, I don't know anything about one getting more fragmented than the other. But if that issue concerns you, and you are not satisfied with the built-in Windows defragmenter, I can recommend Diskeeper Professional Edition.I don't know how it got so many partitions - I never reformatted/repartitioned it. (Read the original "HD went kaput" thread... it's all very strange). If you look, it's lots of crazy stuff too, I mean the partitions total to like 700GB on an 80GB drive... But I was able to get most of my documents off in "one" piece. (So I'm very happy with Active File Recovery - it was about the fourth or fifth software I tried.)

I only brought up the fragmenting based on the articles referenced above. I would just think that defragging a backup would invite problems that I otherwise might not have?

I'm not worried about encryption - the only way PEOPLE would have access to the data would be if they broke into my house. At that point, unwatched episodes of "The Wire" seem hardly worth the worry, comparitively.

The ONLY issue that might come up is, lately I have had some trouble with my laptops and have found "Live" Linux discs very very helpful. It sounds like NTFS would be a problem here, right?

And what's the RAW phenomenon?

Quote

You have a lot of partitions! What are they all used for?

Personally I would advise you to use NTFS for general purpose. I have never encountered this RAW problem myself, so I cannot say how likely it is to be a problem. Bear in mind that FAT32 has a file size limit of, I think, 2gb (possibly less) which may cause a problem with large backup files. Also, it lacks some of encyrption features of NTFS, if you want to protect your data this way. [highlight]I think NTFS also manages large partitions more efficiently than FAT32, but you'd have to look up this one.[/highlight]

Please note that Windows 98 / ME or lower cannot access NTFS, only FAT. If you will be using any of those operating systems, then FAT is your only option.

As for disk fragmentation, I don't know anything about one getting more fragmented than the other. But if that issue concerns you, and you are not satisfied with the built-in Windows defragmenter, I can recommend Diskeeper Professional Edition.

I agree with Neil. And, I highlighted the comment on large partitions; by default, NTFS uses a cluster size of 4KB, much smaller than what FAT32 uses, which is usually 32KB. This results in more efficient use of drive space, especially if you have a lot of small files. Files smaller than the cluster size still consume a cluster. In other words, if a 1 KB file resides in a 32 KB cluster, 31 KB are wasted.

However, I have both FAT32 and NTFS partitions since I have a dual-boot configuration for Win 98SE and Win XP. I keep many files (Word, Excel, ETC.) on a FAT32 partition because both OS can see them.Alright, I'm going with NTFS. If anything goes wrong, I'm blaming you guys.

That's a shame about the COWS. Quote

The ONLY issue that might come up is, lately I have had some trouble with my laptops and have found "Live" Linux discs very very helpful. It sounds like NTFS would be a problem here, right?

Well, if you want to be able to do this, you may want to go with FAT32. I haven't used Linux, but plan to delve into it soon. GX1_MAN would probably have a comment on this if he drops by. I recall various postings by him about using a Linux live disc to obtain files from a Windows OS drive that has become unbootable.
I'd be concerned about your partition problem. That many partitions on a single drive cannot be right, especially if they total more than the drive's capacity. If the drive has nothing of value on it, I would be tempted to delete ALL partitions on that harddrive and start all over again. Or this partition problem might cause another problem when you run out of "real" space, yet your computer thinks it can still store more data. I have never used this utility in the screenshot before - are all of those from your extertnal harddrive?

Open up My Computer and give us the details of all the drives you see in there. Post a screenshot if you want.Well, I did a Quck Format last night - XP forces you to go NTFS. But, the whole reason why I got to Active File Recovery is because the drive was unreadable, from XP, Linux, UBCD4WIN, etc.

I can still reformat as FAT32, if I like (which is why I'm soliciting opinions).

I copied everything from the recovery to a 160GB HD on loan. I'm copying everything back to the reformatted 80, then going to use UBCD4WIN to restore onto a laptop from a backup on the USB HD.

THEN, BEFORE I return the 160, I'm going to have to decide whether or not to keep the 80 as FAT32 or NTFS. It sounds like I'm going to stay NTFS, if the ONLY drawback is its inability to be read in Linux. I only use Linux at crisis times, but, then again, that's the only time I NEED this HD to work.

Solve : FAT32 vs. NTFS?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment