Jump to content


- - - - -

Computer Maintenance and you.Some insightful advice for you people


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#21 gusdotcom

gusdotcom

    I'm a pyrotechnician, if you see me running, try to keep up

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land of hot blonde women A.K.A Sweden...
  • Original Name: gusdotcom

Posted 20 January 2007 - 03:43 AM

QUOTE (Around @ Jan 20 2007, 11:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I thought max file size for FAT32 was 30GB. I actually did a test once, I tried to installl Windows with FAT32 format and it would limit me to 30000 MBs or something like that.

No wikipedia and my own empirical studies show that 4 is max.
I tried putting a 7 GB file on my new external HDD which did not work FAT32.

blink.gif

GTUer of the week 7th-13th of February 2005
Owner of 227.5 Major-Points and 45 Igorski Points

#22 Around

Around
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind your eyelids.
  • Original Name: Around

Posted 21 January 2007 - 09:19 AM

Well, I set 30 gigs in a 250 gb hard drive to be formatted in FAT format, and it did it.

#23 the cash

the cash

    What?

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • Location:On a long hot desert road...
  • Original Name: the cash

Posted 21 January 2007 - 01:34 PM

QUOTE (Around @ Jan 21 2007, 06:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, I set 30 gigs in a 250 gb hard drive to be formatted in FAT format, and it did it.


We're not talking about how big a partition can be in FAT32 but how big ONE file can be. And that's 4 GB if I recall correctly.


Soundclick! -- It's back!

"I've always wanted to smash a guitar over someone's head. You just can't do that with a piano!"

#24 ILLaViTaR

ILLaViTaR
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,054 posts
  • Original Name: ILLaViTaR

Posted 21 January 2007 - 08:33 PM

Me and my mate both tested it on our own comps and we couldnt go past 1GB.

Google says 4GB so I'm down with that

Edited by ILLaViTaR, 21 January 2007 - 08:34 PM.

My setup

Fender Mexican strat Sunburst/maple

Cort Solid top Accoustic, fishman pickup

Marshall JCM 900 Dual Reverb 50watt Hi Gain combo (upgraded to Celestion G12 M Greenbacks and Class A conversion)

1985 Fender Telecaster 62 reissue (with some modern parts on it)

#25 thehundredthone

thehundredthone
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • Original Name: thehundredthone

Posted 22 January 2007 - 12:27 AM

The reason you'll want FAT32 is
a) To prevent unwanted privatisation of data. I know people who made their folders so private not even an administrator could access it, put a password on it and BOOM! forgot the password. It is rectifiable, and quite easily at that but still in the wrong ( tongue.gif ) hands it can create quite a mess.
cool.gif You have a dual boot going on
c) You have a smaller partition (<10 GB) - better read performance.

QUOTE (http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm)
FATxx is an old file system that is simple, well-documented, readable from a large number of OSs, and supported by a wide range of tools.

NTFS is a newer file system that is feature-rich, proprietary, undocumented at the raw bytes level, and subject to change - even within Service Packs of the same OS version.

More detail

NTFS may be faster...
- smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM
- indexed design more efficient for many files per directory
- ...
or slower...
- extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption
- ...

NTFS may be safer...
- transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations
- file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.
- ...
or more at risk...
- no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS
- no maintenance OS for NTFS
- malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty
- transaction rollback does not preserve user data
- more limited range of maintenance tools
- ...

NTFS may be more space-efficient...
- smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G
- sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage
- ...
or less so...
- NTFS has large MFT structure
- larger per-file directory metadata space

I would use NTFS where:

* Users have professional-grade IT admin, including backup
* Users need to hide data more than they need to salvage it
* Applications require files over 4G in size
* Hard drive exceeds the 137G barrier

But while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...

* Data can easily be recovered
* File system structure can be manually checked and repaired
* Malware can be scanned for and cleaned

...I would avoid the use of NTFS in consumer PCs.


Full page at http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm if you can be bothered.

Personally I don't bother with NTFS. FAT32 serves me fine.

Edited by thehundredthone, 22 January 2007 - 12:32 AM.

My Soundclick
My ReverbNation

New Original - Room For Two
Originals - Winter, Resonance, Hours, Thrashy-1
Covers - Manhattan (Eric Johnson), Wayfarer (In Flames), Trains (Porcupine Tree), Cannonball (Damien Rice), Hallowed Be Thy Name instrumental (Iron Maiden)

#26 Around

Around
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind your eyelids.
  • Original Name: Around

Posted 22 January 2007 - 02:44 AM

QUOTE (the cash @ Jan 21 2007, 11:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Around @ Jan 21 2007, 06:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, I set 30 gigs in a 250 gb hard drive to be formatted in FAT format, and it did it.


We're not talking about how big a partition can be in FAT32 but how big ONE file can be. And that's 4 GB if I recall correctly.


Respect, respect...

My main concern with Windows filesystems lately is their compatibility with Linux.

#27 thehundredthone

thehundredthone
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • Original Name: thehundredthone

Posted 22 January 2007 - 09:39 AM

QUOTE (Around @ Jan 22 2007, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Respect, respect...

My main concern with Windows filesystems lately is their compatibility with Linux.


NTFS read-write support is present in the kernel right now. I don't know whether write support has gone beyond overwriting of sectors. I need to read up on that. I think FUSE offers complete RW support.
My Soundclick
My ReverbNation

New Original - Room For Two
Originals - Winter, Resonance, Hours, Thrashy-1
Covers - Manhattan (Eric Johnson), Wayfarer (In Flames), Trains (Porcupine Tree), Cannonball (Damien Rice), Hallowed Be Thy Name instrumental (Iron Maiden)

#28 gusdotcom

gusdotcom

    I'm a pyrotechnician, if you see me running, try to keep up

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land of hot blonde women A.K.A Sweden...
  • Original Name: gusdotcom

Posted 22 January 2007 - 10:17 AM

QUOTE (thehundredthone @ Jan 22 2007, 09:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The reason you'll want FAT32 is
a) To prevent unwanted privatisation of data. I know people who made their folders so private not even an administrator could access it, put a password on it and BOOM! forgot the password. It is rectifiable, and quite easily at that but still in the wrong ( tongue.gif ) hands it can create quite a mess.
cool.gif You have a dual boot going on
c) You have a smaller partition (<10 GB) - better read performance.

QUOTE (http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm)
FATxx is an old file system that is simple, well-documented, readable from a large number of OSs, and supported by a wide range of tools.

NTFS is a newer file system that is feature-rich, proprietary, undocumented at the raw bytes level, and subject to change - even within Service Packs of the same OS version.

More detail

NTFS may be faster...
- smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM
- indexed design more efficient for many files per directory
- ...
or slower...
- extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption
- ...

NTFS may be safer...
- transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations
- file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.
- ...
or more at risk...
- no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS
- no maintenance OS for NTFS
- malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty
- transaction rollback does not preserve user data
- more limited range of maintenance tools
- ...

NTFS may be more space-efficient...
- smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G
- sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage
- ...
or less so...
- NTFS has large MFT structure
- larger per-file directory metadata space

I would use NTFS where:

* Users have professional-grade IT admin, including backup
* Users need to hide data more than they need to salvage it
* Applications require files over 4G in size
* Hard drive exceeds the 137G barrier

But while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...

* Data can easily be recovered
* File system structure can be manually checked and repaired
* Malware can be scanned for and cleaned

...I would avoid the use of NTFS in consumer PCs.


Full page at http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm if you can be bothered.

Personally I don't bother with NTFS. FAT32 serves me fine.

The thing is I need to have files larger than 4 GB so FAT32 is not an option.

blink.gif

GTUer of the week 7th-13th of February 2005
Owner of 227.5 Major-Points and 45 Igorski Points

#29 Around

Around
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind your eyelids.
  • Original Name: Around

Posted 13 February 2007 - 12:50 AM

For hard disk maintenance, I recommend using the program diskeeper. It automatically defragments portions of your hd when you're not working on them. Much better than the integrated defragmentor (defragmentator?) of XP. You can download it here. It's not free, but if you're clever, you can overcome this obstacle. wink.gif

Edited by Around, 13 February 2007 - 12:51 AM.


#30 SmashySmashy

SmashySmashy
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Original Name: AcousticSmash

Posted 21 February 2007 - 03:37 PM

QUOTE (gusdotcom @ Jan 22 2007, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (thehundredthone @ Jan 22 2007, 09:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The reason you'll want FAT32 is
a) To prevent unwanted privatisation of data. I know people who made their folders so private not even an administrator could access it, put a password on it and BOOM! forgot the password. It is rectifiable, and quite easily at that but still in the wrong ( tongue.gif ) hands it can create quite a mess.
cool.gif You have a dual boot going on
c) You have a smaller partition (<10 GB) - better read performance.

QUOTE (http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm)
FATxx is an old file system that is simple, well-documented, readable from a large number of OSs, and supported by a wide range of tools.

NTFS is a newer file system that is feature-rich, proprietary, undocumented at the raw bytes level, and subject to change - even within Service Packs of the same OS version.

More detail

NTFS may be faster...
- smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM
- indexed design more efficient for many files per directory
- ...
or slower...
- extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption
- ...

NTFS may be safer...
- transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations
- file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.
- ...
or more at risk...
- no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS
- no maintenance OS for NTFS
- malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty
- transaction rollback does not preserve user data
- more limited range of maintenance tools
- ...

NTFS may be more space-efficient...
- smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G
- sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage
- ...
or less so...
- NTFS has large MFT structure
- larger per-file directory metadata space

I would use NTFS where:

* Users have professional-grade IT admin, including backup
* Users need to hide data more than they need to salvage it
* Applications require files over 4G in size
* Hard drive exceeds the 137G barrier

But while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...

* Data can easily be recovered
* File system structure can be manually checked and repaired
* Malware can be scanned for and cleaned

...I would avoid the use of NTFS in consumer PCs.


Full page at http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm if you can be bothered.

Personally I don't bother with NTFS. FAT32 serves me fine.

The thing is I need to have files larger than 4 GB so FAT32 is not an option.

blink.gif

FAT32 is terrible for a number of reasons. While you can use Linux on a FAT32 file system, PCLinuxOS uses NTFS and FAT32 so I wouldnt be too worried about using either file systems. However NTFS has far better security, you can store larger files on it and you can create larger partitions, not to mention NTFS allows for file sharing and is the best for networks where you share files between computers, because you cant with FAT32. There are a zillion reasons not to use FAT32 for any large drive over 30GB's, and if you are a media person who rips DVD's and makes movies, then FAT32 is essentially useless. My computer was formatted FAT32 but when I found out that there was a security breach on my drive, I immediatly switched to NTFS and not since has my hard drive been breached. I only use FAT file systems on USB pens though cause thats all they can use.

#31 gusdotcom

gusdotcom

    I'm a pyrotechnician, if you see me running, try to keep up

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land of hot blonde women A.K.A Sweden...
  • Original Name: gusdotcom

Posted 21 February 2007 - 03:54 PM

QUOTE (AcousticSmash @ Feb 22 2007, 12:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (gusdotcom @ Jan 22 2007, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (thehundredthone @ Jan 22 2007, 09:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The reason you'll want FAT32 is
a) To prevent unwanted privatisation of data. I know people who made their folders so private not even an administrator could access it, put a password on it and BOOM! forgot the password. It is rectifiable, and quite easily at that but still in the wrong ( tongue.gif ) hands it can create quite a mess.
cool.gif You have a dual boot going on
c) You have a smaller partition (<10 GB) - better read performance.

QUOTE (http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm)
FATxx is an old file system that is simple, well-documented, readable from a large number of OSs, and supported by a wide range of tools.

NTFS is a newer file system that is feature-rich, proprietary, undocumented at the raw bytes level, and subject to change - even within Service Packs of the same OS version.

More detail

NTFS may be faster...
- smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM
- indexed design more efficient for many files per directory
- ...
or slower...
- extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption
- ...

NTFS may be safer...
- transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations
- file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.
- ...
or more at risk...
- no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS
- no maintenance OS for NTFS
- malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty
- transaction rollback does not preserve user data
- more limited range of maintenance tools
- ...

NTFS may be more space-efficient...
- smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G
- sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage
- ...
or less so...
- NTFS has large MFT structure
- larger per-file directory metadata space

I would use NTFS where:

* Users have professional-grade IT admin, including backup
* Users need to hide data more than they need to salvage it
* Applications require files over 4G in size
* Hard drive exceeds the 137G barrier

But while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...

* Data can easily be recovered
* File system structure can be manually checked and repaired
* Malware can be scanned for and cleaned

...I would avoid the use of NTFS in consumer PCs.


Full page at http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm if you can be bothered.

Personally I don't bother with NTFS. FAT32 serves me fine.

The thing is I need to have files larger than 4 GB so FAT32 is not an option.

blink.gif

FAT32 is terrible for a number of reasons. While you can use Linux on a FAT32 file system, PCLinuxOS uses NTFS and FAT32 so I wouldnt be too worried about using either file systems. However NTFS has far better security, you can store larger files on it and you can create larger partitions, not to mention NTFS allows for file sharing and is the best for networks where you share files between computers, because you cant with FAT32. There are a zillion reasons not to use FAT32 for any large drive over 30GB's, and if you are a media person who rips DVD's and makes movies, then FAT32 is essentially useless. My computer was formatted FAT32 but when I found out that there was a security breach on my drive, I immediatly switched to NTFS and not since has my hard drive been breached. I only use FAT file systems on USB pens though cause thats all they can use.

Guess you should use FAT on external harddrives if you want to use them with older computers as well as your XP.

blink.gif

GTUer of the week 7th-13th of February 2005
Owner of 227.5 Major-Points and 45 Igorski Points

#32 SmashySmashy

SmashySmashy
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Original Name: AcousticSmash

Posted 21 February 2007 - 09:17 PM

QUOTE (gusdotcom @ Feb 21 2007, 06:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (AcousticSmash @ Feb 22 2007, 12:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (gusdotcom @ Jan 22 2007, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (thehundredthone @ Jan 22 2007, 09:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The reason you'll want FAT32 is
a) To prevent unwanted privatisation of data. I know people who made their folders so private not even an administrator could access it, put a password on it and BOOM! forgot the password. It is rectifiable, and quite easily at that but still in the wrong ( tongue.gif ) hands it can create quite a mess.
cool.gif You have a dual boot going on
c) You have a smaller partition (<10 GB) - better read performance.

QUOTE (http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm)
FATxx is an old file system that is simple, well-documented, readable from a large number of OSs, and supported by a wide range of tools.

NTFS is a newer file system that is feature-rich, proprietary, undocumented at the raw bytes level, and subject to change - even within Service Packs of the same OS version.

More detail

NTFS may be faster...
- smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM
- indexed design more efficient for many files per directory
- ...
or slower...
- extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption
- ...

NTFS may be safer...
- transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations
- file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.
- ...
or more at risk...
- no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS
- no maintenance OS for NTFS
- malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty
- transaction rollback does not preserve user data
- more limited range of maintenance tools
- ...

NTFS may be more space-efficient...
- smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G
- sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage
- ...
or less so...
- NTFS has large MFT structure
- larger per-file directory metadata space

I would use NTFS where:

* Users have professional-grade IT admin, including backup
* Users need to hide data more than they need to salvage it
* Applications require files over 4G in size
* Hard drive exceeds the 137G barrier

But while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...

* Data can easily be recovered
* File system structure can be manually checked and repaired
* Malware can be scanned for and cleaned

...I would avoid the use of NTFS in consumer PCs.


Full page at http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm if you can be bothered.

Personally I don't bother with NTFS. FAT32 serves me fine.

The thing is I need to have files larger than 4 GB so FAT32 is not an option.

blink.gif

FAT32 is terrible for a number of reasons. While you can use Linux on a FAT32 file system, PCLinuxOS uses NTFS and FAT32 so I wouldnt be too worried about using either file systems. However NTFS has far better security, you can store larger files on it and you can create larger partitions, not to mention NTFS allows for file sharing and is the best for networks where you share files between computers, because you cant with FAT32. There are a zillion reasons not to use FAT32 for any large drive over 30GB's, and if you are a media person who rips DVD's and makes movies, then FAT32 is essentially useless. My computer was formatted FAT32 but when I found out that there was a security breach on my drive, I immediatly switched to NTFS and not since has my hard drive been breached. I only use FAT file systems on USB pens though cause thats all they can use.

Guess you should use FAT on external harddrives if you want to use them with older computers as well as your XP.

blink.gif

Who uses anything other then XP these days anyway? Only a real idiot would use any other old OS.

#33 thehundredthone

thehundredthone
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • Original Name: thehundredthone

Posted 22 February 2007 - 12:22 AM

QUOTE (AcousticSmash @ Feb 22 2007, 12:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
FAT32 is terrible for a number of reasons. While you can use Linux on a FAT32 file system, PCLinuxOS uses NTFS and FAT32 so I wouldnt be too worried about using either file systems. However NTFS has far better security, you can store larger files on it and you can create larger partitions, not to mention NTFS allows for file sharing and is the best for networks where you share files between computers, because you cant with FAT32. There are a zillion reasons not to use FAT32 for any large drive over 30GB's, and if you are a media person who rips DVD's and makes movies, then FAT32 is essentially useless. My computer was formatted FAT32 but when I found out that there was a security breach on my drive, I immediatly switched to NTFS and not since has my hard drive been breached. I only use FAT file systems on USB pens though cause thats all they can use.


What kind of security breach are we talking about? I won't disagree, though, that NTFS is generally better than FAT32.

QUOTE (AcousticSmash @ Feb 22 2007, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Who uses anything other then XP these days anyway? Only a real idiot would use any other old OS.


There are lots of reasons for people to use other operating systems. The major points are familiarity, stability and specific purposes
-Many media people use Macs (which use HFS+) or Linux (yes, including OLDer versions)
-Complex equations and problems (mostly) are solved using distributed computing on Linux or other *nix based systems (not necessarily running 2.6.16 and above)

And the reason most people use XP is because it comes preinstalled on systems. (soon to be taken over by Vista)
My Soundclick
My ReverbNation

New Original - Room For Two
Originals - Winter, Resonance, Hours, Thrashy-1
Covers - Manhattan (Eric Johnson), Wayfarer (In Flames), Trains (Porcupine Tree), Cannonball (Damien Rice), Hallowed Be Thy Name instrumental (Iron Maiden)

#34 gusdotcom

gusdotcom

    I'm a pyrotechnician, if you see me running, try to keep up

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land of hot blonde women A.K.A Sweden...
  • Original Name: gusdotcom

Posted 23 February 2007 - 02:41 PM

QUOTE (AcousticSmash @ Feb 22 2007, 06:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (gusdotcom @ Feb 21 2007, 06:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (AcousticSmash @ Feb 22 2007, 12:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (gusdotcom @ Jan 22 2007, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (thehundredthone @ Jan 22 2007, 09:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The reason you'll want FAT32 is
a) To prevent unwanted privatisation of data. I know people who made their folders so private not even an administrator could access it, put a password on it and BOOM! forgot the password. It is rectifiable, and quite easily at that but still in the wrong ( tongue.gif ) hands it can create quite a mess.
cool.gif You have a dual boot going on
c) You have a smaller partition (<10 GB) - better read performance.

QUOTE (http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm)
FATxx is an old file system that is simple, well-documented, readable from a large number of OSs, and supported by a wide range of tools.

NTFS is a newer file system that is feature-rich, proprietary, undocumented at the raw bytes level, and subject to change - even within Service Packs of the same OS version.

More detail

NTFS may be faster...
- smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM
- indexed design more efficient for many files per directory
- ...
or slower...
- extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption
- ...

NTFS may be safer...
- transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations
- file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.
- ...
or more at risk...
- no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS
- no maintenance OS for NTFS
- malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty
- transaction rollback does not preserve user data
- more limited range of maintenance tools
- ...

NTFS may be more space-efficient...
- smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G
- sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage
- ...
or less so...
- NTFS has large MFT structure
- larger per-file directory metadata space

I would use NTFS where:

* Users have professional-grade IT admin, including backup
* Users need to hide data more than they need to salvage it
* Applications require files over 4G in size
* Hard drive exceeds the 137G barrier

But while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...

* Data can easily be recovered
* File system structure can be manually checked and repaired
* Malware can be scanned for and cleaned

...I would avoid the use of NTFS in consumer PCs.


Full page at http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm if you can be bothered.

Personally I don't bother with NTFS. FAT32 serves me fine.

The thing is I need to have files larger than 4 GB so FAT32 is not an option.

blink.gif

FAT32 is terrible for a number of reasons. While you can use Linux on a FAT32 file system, PCLinuxOS uses NTFS and FAT32 so I wouldnt be too worried about using either file systems. However NTFS has far better security, you can store larger files on it and you can create larger partitions, not to mention NTFS allows for file sharing and is the best for networks where you share files between computers, because you cant with FAT32. There are a zillion reasons not to use FAT32 for any large drive over 30GB's, and if you are a media person who rips DVD's and makes movies, then FAT32 is essentially useless. My computer was formatted FAT32 but when I found out that there was a security breach on my drive, I immediatly switched to NTFS and not since has my hard drive been breached. I only use FAT file systems on USB pens though cause thats all they can use.

Guess you should use FAT on external harddrives if you want to use them with older computers as well as your XP.

blink.gif

Who uses anything other then XP these days anyway? Only a real idiot would use any other old OS.

People with older computers run older OS. We have a computer in the bar which has Windows 98 on it. We use it only for playing music and it's too old to use XP. Does that make us idiots?

blink.gif

GTUer of the week 7th-13th of February 2005
Owner of 227.5 Major-Points and 45 Igorski Points

#35 SmashySmashy

SmashySmashy
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Original Name: AcousticSmash

Posted 23 February 2007 - 02:44 PM

QUOTE (gusdotcom @ Feb 23 2007, 05:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (AcousticSmash @ Feb 22 2007, 06:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (gusdotcom @ Feb 21 2007, 06:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (AcousticSmash @ Feb 22 2007, 12:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (gusdotcom @ Jan 22 2007, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (thehundredthone @ Jan 22 2007, 09:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The reason you'll want FAT32 is
a) To prevent unwanted privatisation of data. I know people who made their folders so private not even an administrator could access it, put a password on it and BOOM! forgot the password. It is rectifiable, and quite easily at that but still in the wrong ( tongue.gif ) hands it can create quite a mess.
cool.gif You have a dual boot going on
c) You have a smaller partition (<10 GB) - better read performance.

QUOTE (http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm)
FATxx is an old file system that is simple, well-documented, readable from a large number of OSs, and supported by a wide range of tools.

NTFS is a newer file system that is feature-rich, proprietary, undocumented at the raw bytes level, and subject to change - even within Service Packs of the same OS version.

More detail

NTFS may be faster...
- smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM
- indexed design more efficient for many files per directory
- ...
or slower...
- extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption
- ...

NTFS may be safer...
- transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations
- file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.
- ...
or more at risk...
- no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS
- no maintenance OS for NTFS
- malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty
- transaction rollback does not preserve user data
- more limited range of maintenance tools
- ...

NTFS may be more space-efficient...
- smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G
- sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage
- ...
or less so...
- NTFS has large MFT structure
- larger per-file directory metadata space

I would use NTFS where:

* Users have professional-grade IT admin, including backup
* Users need to hide data more than they need to salvage it
* Applications require files over 4G in size
* Hard drive exceeds the 137G barrier

But while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...

* Data can easily be recovered
* File system structure can be manually checked and repaired
* Malware can be scanned for and cleaned

...I would avoid the use of NTFS in consumer PCs.


Full page at http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm if you can be bothered.

Personally I don't bother with NTFS. FAT32 serves me fine.

The thing is I need to have files larger than 4 GB so FAT32 is not an option.

blink.gif

FAT32 is terrible for a number of reasons. While you can use Linux on a FAT32 file system, PCLinuxOS uses NTFS and FAT32 so I wouldnt be too worried about using either file systems. However NTFS has far better security, you can store larger files on it and you can create larger partitions, not to mention NTFS allows for file sharing and is the best for networks where you share files between computers, because you cant with FAT32. There are a zillion reasons not to use FAT32 for any large drive over 30GB's, and if you are a media person who rips DVD's and makes movies, then FAT32 is essentially useless. My computer was formatted FAT32 but when I found out that there was a security breach on my drive, I immediatly switched to NTFS and not since has my hard drive been breached. I only use FAT file systems on USB pens though cause thats all they can use.

Guess you should use FAT on external harddrives if you want to use them with older computers as well as your XP.

blink.gif

Who uses anything other then XP these days anyway? Only a real idiot would use any other old OS.

People with older computers run older OS. We have a computer in the bar which has Windows 98 on it. We use it only for playing music and it's too old to use XP. Does that make us idiots?

blink.gif

No, that makes you a poor sucker. If thats all you use it for then I dont see why not, however for general purpose computing it seems like a waste of time to own an old computer considering any new software you try and put on it would most likely crash the damn thing.

#36 gusdotcom

gusdotcom

    I'm a pyrotechnician, if you see me running, try to keep up

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land of hot blonde women A.K.A Sweden...
  • Original Name: gusdotcom

Posted 24 February 2007 - 03:58 AM

QUOTE (AcousticSmash @ Feb 23 2007, 11:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (gusdotcom @ Feb 23 2007, 05:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (AcousticSmash @ Feb 22 2007, 06:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (gusdotcom @ Feb 21 2007, 06:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (AcousticSmash @ Feb 22 2007, 12:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (gusdotcom @ Jan 22 2007, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (thehundredthone @ Jan 22 2007, 09:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The reason you'll want FAT32 is
a) To prevent unwanted privatisation of data. I know people who made their folders so private not even an administrator could access it, put a password on it and BOOM! forgot the password. It is rectifiable, and quite easily at that but still in the wrong ( tongue.gif ) hands it can create quite a mess.
cool.gif You have a dual boot going on
c) You have a smaller partition (<10 GB) - better read performance.

QUOTE (http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm)
FATxx is an old file system that is simple, well-documented, readable from a large number of OSs, and supported by a wide range of tools.

NTFS is a newer file system that is feature-rich, proprietary, undocumented at the raw bytes level, and subject to change - even within Service Packs of the same OS version.

More detail

NTFS may be faster...
- smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM
- indexed design more efficient for many files per directory
- ...
or slower...
- extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption
- ...

NTFS may be safer...
- transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations
- file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.
- ...
or more at risk...
- no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS
- no maintenance OS for NTFS
- malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty
- transaction rollback does not preserve user data
- more limited range of maintenance tools
- ...

NTFS may be more space-efficient...
- smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G
- sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage
- ...
or less so...
- NTFS has large MFT structure
- larger per-file directory metadata space

I would use NTFS where:

* Users have professional-grade IT admin, including backup
* Users need to hide data more than they need to salvage it
* Applications require files over 4G in size
* Hard drive exceeds the 137G barrier

But while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...

* Data can easily be recovered
* File system structure can be manually checked and repaired
* Malware can be scanned for and cleaned

...I would avoid the use of NTFS in consumer PCs.


Full page at http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm if you can be bothered.

Personally I don't bother with NTFS. FAT32 serves me fine.

The thing is I need to have files larger than 4 GB so FAT32 is not an option.

blink.gif

FAT32 is terrible for a number of reasons. While you can use Linux on a FAT32 file system, PCLinuxOS uses NTFS and FAT32 so I wouldnt be too worried about using either file systems. However NTFS has far better security, you can store larger files on it and you can create larger partitions, not to mention NTFS allows for file sharing and is the best for networks where you share files between computers, because you cant with FAT32. There are a zillion reasons not to use FAT32 for any large drive over 30GB's, and if you are a media person who rips DVD's and makes movies, then FAT32 is essentially useless. My computer was formatted FAT32 but when I found out that there was a security breach on my drive, I immediatly switched to NTFS and not since has my hard drive been breached. I only use FAT file systems on USB pens though cause thats all they can use.

Guess you should use FAT on external harddrives if you want to use them with older computers as well as your XP.

blink.gif

Who uses anything other then XP these days anyway? Only a real idiot would use any other old OS.

People with older computers run older OS. We have a computer in the bar which has Windows 98 on it. We use it only for playing music and it's too old to use XP. Does that make us idiots?

blink.gif

No, that makes you a poor sucker. If thats all you use it for then I dont see why not, however for general purpose computing it seems like a waste of time to own an old computer considering any new software you try and put on it would most likely crash the damn thing.

A computer that is only used for surfing and writing school papers really does not need XP. You can do just fine with 98 or 2000.

blink.gif

GTUer of the week 7th-13th of February 2005
Owner of 227.5 Major-Points and 45 Igorski Points

#37 SmashySmashy

SmashySmashy
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Original Name: AcousticSmash

Posted 24 February 2007 - 07:58 AM

Yea but unless you intend on working between your own computer and the school's, you are going to need current sofware that requires a good computer and 98 and 2000 are very limited in the amount of hardware they can support. XP supports up to like 8 GB's of RAM whereas 98 or 2000 couldnt even get close to that.

#38 gusdotcom

gusdotcom

    I'm a pyrotechnician, if you see me running, try to keep up

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land of hot blonde women A.K.A Sweden...
  • Original Name: gusdotcom

Posted 24 February 2007 - 08:47 AM

QUOTE (AcousticSmash @ Feb 24 2007, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yea but unless you intend on working between your own computer and the school's, you are going to need current sofware that requires a good computer and 98 and 2000 are very limited in the amount of hardware they can support. XP supports up to like 8 GB's of RAM whereas 98 or 2000 couldnt even get close to that.

Not that many people actually need to use heavy software in school.

blink.gif

GTUer of the week 7th-13th of February 2005
Owner of 227.5 Major-Points and 45 Igorski Points

#39 thehundredthone

thehundredthone
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • Original Name: thehundredthone

Posted 24 February 2007 - 09:51 AM

I get the feeling that if Windows had something like SVN AcousticSmash would have an automated update every evening.

New doesn't mean necessarily better AND/OR more importantly, stable.

For general use 98 is still fine.
My Soundclick
My ReverbNation

New Original - Room For Two
Originals - Winter, Resonance, Hours, Thrashy-1
Covers - Manhattan (Eric Johnson), Wayfarer (In Flames), Trains (Porcupine Tree), Cannonball (Damien Rice), Hallowed Be Thy Name instrumental (Iron Maiden)

#40 nate.

nate.

    Ay, yo, this rap is like ziti.

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Original Name: Nater11

Posted 20 August 2007 - 03:16 PM

I'm gonna do a defrag, because i know if i dont do it before school, it wont get done.

Can i have anything else running while the defrag is going? How long will it take?

0e5efacb-b8f0-4d66-9f87-bd9292db5751_zps

Harry Allen on you bitch, I believe no hype.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Please consider donating to GuitarZone.com.
With more and more people using ad blocking add-ons for browsers, ad revenue has plummeted.
If you can spare even US$5 it would mean a lot to help pay for GZ's monthly server bill.
Thank you to all. Cheers! --Rob



Method #1: PayPal



Click 'Donate' above
to donate with any
major credit card or
existing PayPal funds.


E-mail on record with PayPal
[ ]



Method #2: Bitcoin


Option A )  Scan Bitcoin QR Code


Scan above box with mobile phone, or click...



Option B )  Copy and Paste Bitcoin Address

  13NA7exoZVPGBAxnKXcQAz35JQ5PvnhYDE  


Copy above address and paste into Bitcoin app...



Learn more about Bitcoin...