NTFS vs. FAT32

[Kabob]

I did a search but got pages and pages of nothing that really helped me.

I'm just wondering, what is the difference between NTFS and FAT32? I'd love some insight.

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: kabob983
I did a search but got pages and pages of nothing that really helped me.

I'm just wondering, what is the difference between NTFS and FAT32? I'd love some insight.

google

first entry:

http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

 

[known12345]

Hmm after reading that, I still dont understand the overall difference between the two. I mean yes it lists the differences between the two, but overall, what is NTFS used for and what is FAT32 used for? I mean I get that NTFS is probably the one most people use because I mean all those features listed for NTFS sounds like the typical hard drive but what caught my eye was the "performance" tab of FAT32: "High on small volumes, Low on large." Now does it mean to say that its fast when you have small volumes (maybe an OS drive) but not so fast if its not a small size drive? If this is the case, can I simply create a 32 gb partition on FAT32 (I know vista 64 only seems to want to use a NTFS format) for my xp 32 bit os?

Or most likely, am I missing the entire point completely.

 

[Nothinman]

Just ignore FAT, it should really only be used on small external drives for compatibility's sake. And even that's questionable these days since Linux can write to NTFS fairly well now with NTFS-3g.

 

[Cr0nJ0b]

Let me see if I can get close to what you are looking for without too much of the BS.

Basically FAT32 is the old way to storing files (File Allocation Table). It kept the name of the file and it's associated block address location in a table on the hard drive or media volume. When the system requested a read to a file, it would look up the location in the FAT table and then read back the file. But it was an out growth of an older FAT system called FAT16 (the 16 and 32 are for 16bit and 32bit address structures). What's important is that there isn't a whole lot of information held in FAT. the only security descriptors are read, write, archive, time, date etc...no user information. It was also built for compatibility with older 16bit address schemes, so there was a lot of legacy stuff that it had to keep doing.

NTFS (New Technology File System) was a more elaborate filing system that held more informatio and was much more extensible. I'm not sure of the numbers but I think a FAT32 partition can go up to 2GB and that's it. NFTS is really big, really really big...bigger than you will ever, ever build. It also includes security descriptors and permission settings like userID, domain authentication keys etc. It was also built to be somewhat more efficient in it's use of block space, so theoretically it would format more usable space out of a volume than FAT32.

People will correct the errors above, but for the most part NTFS is bigger, does more and is more efficient than FAT32.

As mentioned earlier, FAT32 should be used for compatibility only. I would format external drives with it and that's only if i'm planning to share them with a unix host. I personally still don't trust Unix for NTFS r/w yet. that's my issue.

I would say use FAT for thumb drives and for stuff that you will move to other odd hosts like windows 98 or unix. and use NTFS for everything else.

 

[NXIL]

Google:

http://www.google.com/search?q...&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Second entry:

http://www.microsoft.com/windo.../russel_october01.mspx

To NTFS or not to NTFS?that is the question. But unlike the deeper questions of life, this one isn't really all that hard to answer. For most users running Windows XP, NTFS is the obvious choice. It's more powerful and offers security advantages not found in the other file systems.

Or:

http://thundercloud.net/inform...-avenue/ntfs-vs-fat32/

Bottom line: NTFS better, except for thumb drives.

HTH

NXIL

 

[NXIL]

Hey Chron,

very nice no BS summary.

FAT32 partition: max size is 32GB (used to be a huge hard drive....), but that is often expanded to modern drive sizes with some "tricks".

FAT32 maximum file size: 4GB. (DVD disks are 4.7GB.....)

FAT32: no fault tolerance, no security....

NXIL

 

[Cr0nJ0b]

Sorry, I knew people would correct me. The issues with 32GB partitions is that they aren't support on all OS types. 2GB partitions are supported on DOS 32GB for others with the tricks that you speak of, which...i think is related to LBA mode, block remapping. The 2GB is just for pure compatibility. As for DVDs, I've never seen a DVD with FAT32. All I've ever seen is UFS, HFS and some other types for removable media.

 

[AsianriceX]

32GB was an arbitrary limit imposed by Microsoft when Windows 2000 came out. The theoretical limit of a FAT32 partition is 2TB, but considering the way the file allocation table was implemented, you find that a huge FAT32 partition with lots of files isn't efficient in practice.

http://technet.microsoft.com/e...60978(TechNet.10).aspx

 

[solog]

I would disagree with that and say it is a BS summary as I currently have a 372GB FAT32 Partition on WinXP. The 32GB limit is only on some OSs (which one I don't know)

 

[Nothinman]

The issues with 32GB partitions is that they aren't support on all OS types.

Every OS I can think of can read a >32G FAT filesystem, it's just Windows that can't create them. If you create them in something else (like using mkdosfs in Linux) even Windows will use a 2TB FAT filesystem just fine.

The 2GB is just for pure compatibility. As for DVDs, I've never seen a DVD with FAT32. All I've ever seen is UFS, HFS and some other types for removable media.

2G was a limit of a 16-bit FAT, 32-bit FAT was made just to work around that. And his comment about DVDs was in respect to the fact that you can't have a single file larger than 4G on a FAT volume and DVD images are usually >4G so any DVD ripping will have to be done on another filesystem. Although technically you can put whatever filesystem you want on a CD or DVD, it's just not usually done like that.

 

[nonameo]

32gb for windows XP is an artificial limitation made to get you to use NTFS.

edit: edit remove