Slashdot Mirror
NTFS vs. FAT32
Glonk asks: "I've tried searching for a good page outlining the differences between NTFS and FAT32, but I couldn't find any really informative sites. Does anyone know the advantages and disadvantages of NTFS over FAT32? I'm wondering if it'll be worth reformatting my drive to NTFS whenever WinXP gets released."
I will not bother to poste a link to any page but the simple comparison of the following feature puts me FIRMLY in the NTFS crowd.
NTFS supports account based access control to directories and files. FAT32 does not.
Must Consult Someone Experienced
and it has had one for over a year...
:-P
FUD
Yes, there is a Linux driver for NTFS. In kernel 2.4.4, it's marked EXPERIMENTAL and DANGEROUS. It can read NTFS files, but when writing it corrupts the disk (the structure of the journal entries is protected by a NDA). You must unmount the disk in Linux, and run a utility which will force NT to run chkdsk to add the journal entries.
Not really the best solution...
Security by ACL's
File access auditing
Logging file system => consistent data => no need to every run a "scandisk" application
File & Folder compression
Encrypted File System
Less fragmentation: NTFS will write small files directly into the MFT, or if a small file is too big to fit in the MFT it will try and write it close to the MFT to reduce head movement
Smaller blocks and supports partitions up to 2 exabytes
Reparse points, which are like unix symbolic links
Reasons to use FAT:
Need to access FS from another OS that doesn't support NTFS
Less overhead on small partitions, by small I mean
Unless you're dual booting, there is no reason to use FAT32!!
ÕÕ
ÕÕ
>"Macintosh" files saved on an NTFS volume will retain their resourse forks, whereas if they're saved on a FAT16/32 volume the resource forks will be lost.
Sorry, no; better luck next time. The resource fork integrity depends wholly on how you're getting the split-format files to and from the volume -- most available mac-compatible file sharing software will put dual-fork files on single-fork filesystems without complaint.
Generally you should stick to file-sharing software that stores files using macbinary or binhex formats, or that uses secondary (usually hidden) resource fork files (this is how Apple's PC Exchange stores them on FAT ["DOS-format"] disks).
>FYI, resource forks on Mac are "kind of" the Mac equivalent of the three character extension on DOS files. They're used to tell the OS what kind of file it is, what application can be used to run it, etc.
Heh. Sadly, this explanation has all the in-depth technical knowledge that is typical of Mac users everywhere. =)
For you innocent Mac users who don't know what I'm getting at:
I'm far likely to get this definition --
"The gasoline combustion engine is a noise-making device, installed in cars primarily to signal to any blind pedestrians who may be trying to cross the road up ahead that it might be a bad idea to do so right now."
-- from a blind non-mechanic pedestrian than from anyone else. If you think about it, from the point of view of our theoretical blind non-mechanic pedestrian (whom we will call Theo for short), this definition might be essentially complete.
Now, imagine that Theo decides to acquire an Apple iCar(tm), a miraculous conveyance that can drive from point A to any other point with only a single voice command from the owner, and is available in any colour of the (fluorescent plastic) rainbow...
[Have a Great Day!] -aT
-aT
On the other hand, if you are going to dual-boot your system (with Windows 9x or ME or Linux or most of the xBSDs), you'll want FAT32. At least for the data that you want to share. There's far better third-party support for FAT32.
That also means you might want to consider FAT32 if you run other applications. Norton Utilities, for example, that kind of thing. Though you'd probably need the XP version anyway.
So in summary... go for NTFS if you will use Windows NT (i.e. NT, 2K, or XP) only. If you want to run other operating systems and share data, go for FAT32.
--
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Sure, there are lots of reasons to use NTFS instead of FATxx.
NTFS is a decendant of HPFS which was OS/2's High Performance File System. HPFS is a full hierarchical filesystem, and provides native support for things like real file names, etc. It's b-tree based, so things like directory listing are automatically sorted. Other nifties like filesystem checks take a LOT less time.
FAT32 is simply an extension of FAT16 which was itself an extension of FAT12, which was a 160k floppy disk filesystem. It's a darned mess. Filename support besides 8.3 is STILL a joke. FAT isn't optimized for anything. It was designed to be used on small floppies where organization doesn't matter. Hell, it wasn't even originally designed to support subdirectories! Remember, FAT stands for (F)ile (A)llocation (T)able -- and that's exactly what it is. Simply a list of filenames and their physical location on disk.
I'd use NTFS. I haven't kept up with things since the OS/2 Warp 3 days, but simple filesystem design hasn't changed. FAT's a bit of throwaway code that should have been ditched 20 years ago.
--dmurphy
p.s. I haven't even taken into account things like security features, POSIX compliance, etc...
RecoverabilityThe recoverability designed into NTFS is such that a user should seldom have to run a disk repair program on an NTFS volume. NTFS guarantees the consistency of the volume by using standard transaction logging and recovery techniques. In the event of a system failure, NTFS uses its log file and checkpoint information to automatically restore the consistency of the file system.
CompressionWindows2000 supports compression on an individual file basis for NTFS volumes. Files that are compressed on an NTFS volume can be read and written by any Windows-based application without first being decompressed by another program. Decompression happens automatically during the read of the file. The file is compressed again when it is closed or saved.
In addition, formatting your volumes with NTFS instead of FAT16 or FAT32 provides the following advantages:
- There are some Windows2000 operating system features that require NTFS.
- Faster access speed. NTFS minimizes the number of disk accesses required to find a file.
- File and folder security. On NTFS volumes, you can set file permissions on files and folders that specify which groups and users have access to them, and what level of access is permitted. NTFS file and folder permissions apply both to users working at the computer where the file is stored and to users accessing the file over the network when the file is in a shared folder. With NTFS you can also set share permissions that operate on shared folders in combination with file and folder permissions.
- Windows2000 can format volumes up to 2terabytes in size with NTFS.
- The boot sector is backed up to a sector at the end of the volume.
- NTFS supports a native encryption system called Encrypting File System (EFS), using public-key security to prevent unauthorized access to file contents.
- NTFS functionality can be extended by using reparse points, enabling new features such as volume mount points.
- Disk quotas can be set, limiting the amount of space users can consume on an NTFS volume.
- Multiple Data Streams.
POSIX ComplianceIf you want POSIX compliance, you must use NTFS. POSIX compliance permits UNIX programs to be ported to Windows2000. Windows2000 is fully compliant with the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) standard 1003.1, which is a standard for file naming and identification.
The following POSIX-compliant features are included in NTFS:
There were some posts talking about the advantages. Now the disadvantages. (At least the ones I know)
You can not access NTFS disks from DOS or Win9x. If you have any programs that don't run on WinNT (eg. some DOS games) you will be unable to run those programs, unless you also have a FAT/32 (FAT or FAT32) partition.
If you create a FAT/32 partition in orther to dual boot, you will be unable to access the files on the NTFS partition when you boot from the FAT/32 partition.
From Linux the read/write access to files on NTFS partitions is not as reliable as FAT/32. The NTFS driver is still in "experimental" stage (At least in kernel 2.2.x, I didn't check 2.4.x). If you don't use Linux, this is not a problem.
I don't know if there are any undelete utilities for NTFS.
Nevertheless, I think NTFS is a good choice if you use WinNT (or any variant).
MOD THE CHILD UP!