NTFS and Fat32 question(s)

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 1:25 pm

Okie-dokey then, heres the deal:

Nasty mean virus slapped me about. Ended up reformatting my Drive 0(Western Digital SE 80 gig), moved all my critical files to Drive 1 (Another WD SE 80 gigger).

I formatted the drive 0 NTFS on a whim, just to see whats up. Left the 1 drive Fat32.

Benched with diskspeed32, the burst rates are indentical, the read/write rates ARE NOT. Gettin 25-27k with the NTFS, and 53-55k with the Fat32 drive. Big difference huh?

I'm using Intel Ultra ATA controllers(Intel Application Accelerator actually). Nothing generic in the chain, so I know I'm optimized.

Is NTFS just slower, or do I need a different tweak?

Thanks y'all.

Docsta · Post by **Docsta** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 3:15 pm

NTFS is much better in my opinion, as it has more granular security permissions, simply put... From my experience, and from what i've heard many times is that FAT32 gives you better file access time, though. Brembo, however, if you're planning on dual booting with OS's such as XP, 2000, or NT 4.0,... with something that only works in FAT32 type format... do not go with ntfs since the only thing that can read NTFS partitions are those three operating systems. Also, with FAT32 the maximum size a file can be is 4gigs. With NTFS it is much larger than that brembo.

So to put it simple...FAT32 is a little faster, but NTFS is more secure. Its simply your choice.

I miss FAT32, I had to get used to NTFS..but now I love NTFS...plus like i said..its more secure...which is really nice.

cyberskye · Post by **cyberskye** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 3:19 pm

NTFS can perform better on really big partitions due to indexing. Less prone to fragmentation, too.

zxc47 · Post by **zxc47** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 3:43 pm

Fat 32 is faster for small hard drives under 38 gig's over that use NTFS.