NTFS or Fat32/ OS XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fusion2
  • Start date Start date
F

Fusion2

New member
What's the word on this? I've read fat32 preforms better creating audio on winXP...

cluster and encryption are factors i believe but i haven't found much info on the subject or remember it :) thanks
 
Maybe it's too early in the morning for me, but I believe WinXP is NTFS.

One advantage being relatively unlimited in file size...
 
NTFS

If your HD is larger than 32Gb, you will have to create multiple partitions because XP limits FAT32 partitions to 32Gb in size.
 
i run NTFS, but read at sweetwater i believe Fat32 does better somehow, or that the "Pro's" set there systems up using that file system, no issues with NTFS here, who knows, they may be running 98 for all i know, as backwards as that would be given the lovely BSOD daily 98 gives at times...

excuse the 98 bash, XP when tweaked correctly is bloated but pretty much stable otherwise, IMHO...
 
Fusion2 said:
read at sweetwater i believe Fat32 does better somehow
Click to expand...

thats just a cultural myth. somebody once said it and so everyone agreed and reprints it everyone on the net without anything to back it up. Don't believe everything you read.

both NTFS and FAT32 offer advatanges and neither one shows a distinct advantage in writing and reading audio files. Either one will get the job done just as well as the other.
 
NTFS has only been available since the NT era which means win2000, nt or xp.

NTFS saves you space compared to FAT32 cause it writes the files one after the other without losing space jumping to the next cluster.

With FAT32, you get faster defragmentation but you lose some space cuz it jumps to the next cluster everytime it starts writing a new file. So even if your file is only 1bit, it'll take much more space on the disk. While in NTFS, a 1bit file will take only 1bit.
I'd have to open my books to see the exact numbers here so excuse me.... but that's the way it works.

Also, it's easier to recover files after a format on FAT32 than NTFS.

If you plan on having 9999999999999999999999 small files on your system, go with NTFS. If not, then you wont really see any difference btw the 2 xept NTFS will take longer to defrag.

Btw the best tool to defrag would be Diskeeper. Dont even bother with windows's defrag.
 
>If your HD is larger than 32Gb, you will have to create multiple partitions because XP limits FAT32 partitions to 32Gb in size.

Really? My 80GB HD is in one partition using FAT32 under XP.

So is my 40GB drive.
 
Whoa...okay...I hate to start arguments and I'll keep it nice if you will, but there's a lot of misinformation in your post:

NTFS has only been available since the NT era which means win2000, nt or xp.
Click to expand...

That's not really wrong, but NTFS has been around LONGER than FAT32 (but not longer than FAT16).

While in NTFS, a 1bit file will take only 1bit.
I'd have to open my books to see the exact numbers here so excuse me.... but that's the way it works.
Click to expand...

That is not true. All MS operating systems use allocation units (clusters) of a certain size. I think maybe the difference you're trying to point out is MFT's vs FAT's, in that the master tables used by NTFS are indeed more efficient than the allocation tables used by FAT32....but even the MFT has a record of a certain size, and that's only an issue for *very* small files that can be stored right in the MFT.

I'm not aware of any file system on any operating system that can store a one bit file using one bit.

Also, it's easier to recover files after a format on FAT32 than NTFS.
Click to expand...

Acutally, NTFS is more recoverable because it's transaction based and keeps multiple copies of the MFT. The only way that FAT32 might be considered more recoverable is that a lot of old recovery tools would only work with FAT...but that's changed.

As far as defragging goes, it's sort of a non-issue. I defrag my system drive once a year, and rarely defrag my audio drive (which is horribly fragmented). I do agree though that the windows defragmenter isn't the greatest.

Performance wise on large audio files, both file systems will put up very similar numbers. Therefore, it just makes more sense to go with NTFS. It was true back in the 4800/5400RPM drive days and NT4 and PIO that NTFS was a bit slow for audio, but that is no longer the case.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Doc, XP can support >32GB FAT32 partitions via its fastfat driver, but you cannot create a >32GB FAT32 partition using the XP format utility...you'd have to use Win98 or WinME format. This was done intentionally because NTFS is a better performing and safer file system, especially on large volumes.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Before I started using my drive I ran DSKBENCH that you can find somewhere on the prorec site. First did it on NTFS, then on FAT32. result was that NTFS could do 120 tracks, FAT32 did 124 according to that particular bench. So there is a difference, but it is not worth it in my opinion.

Using ntfs since NT3.51, and my experience is that it is less influenced by fragmentation.

Diskeeper is the way to go. Whatever filesystem you use. The windows utility in W2K is a lite version of it, but it won't do large clusters, so beware.

Your HD uses 512 bytes clusters, no os can go below that.
 
Shakuan said:
you wont really see any difference btw the 2 xept NTFS will take longer to defrag.
Click to expand...

Thats not really true at all... on my system NTFS defrags faster than FAT32 does... and I've spoken with alot of people and alot say that on their DAWs NTFS defrags faster than FAT32.
 
Yeah sorry for misleading information, I guess I was sleeping-listenning in my course.

About the defrag time tho, I heard by 2 guys which have tried both that NTFS takes longer... so I guess we cant really say 1 is faster than the other... matter of opinion; it would be hard to verify.

About the file recovery; NTFS makes it easier to recover files after they've been deleted or after a format, I was wrong, thanx for rectifying!

Also, sorry if my english sucks, im doing the best I can.
 
Shakuan, no problem...that's what these forums are for!

Slackmaster 2000
 
Whats Up Slackmaster!
As far as defragging goes, it's sort of a non-issue. I defrag my system drive once a year, and
Click to expand...
Do you think it would be an issue (with audio) with 20 gig or less drives with heavy usage using Fat 32?
I guess Im still paranoid from the 286 days.
:cool:
 
I don't believe it to be much of an issue, no. My main audio partition is only 15GB and is almost full...I add and delete files very regularly on this partition...and according to the windows defragger, it is severly fragmented...yet I have no trouble playing back large projects (24 tracks, 24bit/44.1khz audio) or recording. In fact, it's been said a few times that the "natural" interleving (e.g. good fragmentation) created by recording multiple tracks at once actually improves performance (if you happen to record multiple tracks simultaneously.

That said, I have on a few occasions seen severely fragmented drives perform slugishly, although that's usually been with system drives (which by nature work with mostly small-medium sized files). If it makes you feel better to defrag, go for it. However, it is not nearly as important as it was some years ago. There is no reason to defrag once a week or even once a month. Put yourself on a 6 month or 1 year schedule and call it good! Or if you happen to notice that something doesn't "feel" right with the system's drive performance, that's another good time to defrag.

(of course depending on your exactly circumstance, all of this may be more or less true)

Slackmaster 2000
 
running diskeeper or voptxp will cut the frag time to .25 or a third of windows defrag time....

xp is well known to frag badly, worse than 98 i've read a # of times, Notorious was the word used i believe...

i frag daily at times, when i'm creative or gathering samples via cable...

this may be overkill at times but a third of C partition being (red) fragged is kind of disturbing to most tech or preformance/power users just knowing it...

thanks for all the input...
 
I haven't defragged my drive (one 40gig drive split into four partitions) in many months, and to tell ya the truth, I cannot notice a performance difference when i do defrag. SO I just don't bother to do it excpet maybe twice a year. On slower HDs (like 5400RPM) I can tell a difference when defragged but on 7200RPM drives, I just don't see any. Neither did DiskBnch. After defragging it saw it was possible to get maybe 4 more tracks. But since that was 120 tracks vs 124, I didn't really care since I never get anywhere that close because #1 I don't want to and #2 other system components will bottle neck and give out before the 120 track mark is reached.

*happily running a 30% fragmented drive*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top