which file system is more efficient for windows, NTFS or FAT

Hi all,
just wondering. APART FROM ADVANCD SECURITY AND INDEXING FEATURES avilable in NTFS, is NTFS a better file system than FAT32 in terms of stability, and / or speed [performance] ? Is NTFS or FAT32 more efficient?
I have noticed that NTFS seems to be less prone to corruption in files and directories as FAT 12/16/32 (vfat) is. I could be mistaken though.
Let me know what you guys think.

AGAIN, I am NOT talking about the security or indexing features of NTFS!

note: running Windows 2000 Pro / Windows XP pro / Linux Mandrake 8.1 (2.4.8-26mdk kernel)

NTFS5 (win2k) is well known for being more stable, secure and, so it seems, faster. That's all I know about this, my win2k is on ntfs5 and I've never had any hdd problem nor corrupted or lost files, so far.

What about ntfs with WinXP?

Thanx AlecStaar. I think that helps me out a little.

Hi, Awesome! I'm glad I converted to NTFS. ALl my partitions are larger than 5 GB. In fact, my main Mp3 partition (12.1GB) is NTFS.
I would probably kepp FAT32 as a partition siply for easier read/write access from within Linux. Other than than, linux can use read-only features to access NTFS partitions! That is one huge advancement in linux (i think).
Anyways, Even though Fat32 seems to have less space constrictions and less items "attached" to the file system, I still think NTFS is a better choice simply because I never see any corrupted files or directories when using it. It also seems a little bit faster when defragging, LOL

Thanx for your help AlecStaar. That gives me a few hints to research into. Oh and btw,

I am gonna take Data Structrues I next quarter (in C++). Its the last time my University offers it in C++ so I HAVE to jump in on the bandwagon and take it, providing I get a 2.7 or better out of OOP (which I'm taking now). Data Structures II is language-inspecific so I'm not worried about that just yet. So I can't wait till I'm done with them so I can actually get down and dirty at file-system level!

Thanx, I'll read more this weekend. I have an assignment i gotta get done by midnight. Not ime to read it now, lol

Nope, got one more HUGE one...

NTFS has saved my A$$ a few times. When you lose power suddenly, you aren't as susceptible to data loss with NTFS as with FAT32, if I remember correctly. I'm not uber guru on NT, but NTFS does wipe the floor with FAT32 on saving your hide.

I agree! Also, NTFS seems to prevent all those weird file system errors and file/directory corruptions that are all over the place in vfat!!!!

upgrade my HD's to ntfs.

But, I just purchased a new pc (ready built) >

P4 1.6 ghz
512 MB PC133 SDRam
Gef 3 Ti200 w Vid in & TV Out
Onboard 6.1 sound
16x DVD
16x10x40 Sony CDRW (Burnproof)
Seagate 80GB ata100 7200 rpm HD (Formatted as NTFS)
FD
Keyboard
IntelliMouse
WXP Home edition (and other software)

£699.99

Anyways, I was gonna ghost it, but ghost 2001 doesn't support WXP NTFS

I know botting up with a DOS/W98 startup disk, and looking at Partitions doesn't work if they are formatted with NTFS, so HOW? is ntfs better??

How can I get at my files if Windows dies?

Forgive my lack of knowledge in this area, but I think I need a bit of guidance.

Cheers

Yes, it is definately a risky business if you plan to use Win95/98/Me as they have no access to NTFS partitions. However, look on the positives here:

1.) NTFS is a lot more stable than FAT32 (read above)
2.) NTFS has waaaaay less problems and it doesn't seem to suffer from file and directory loss/corruption
3.) NTFS has many built-in security features!
4.) As for windows dying, the chances of windows dying with Win2k or WInXP are very small, ALSO remmember that you just have a chance of windows dying ANYWAYS

read the above, and I'm sure you'd agree NTFS is probably worth the migration! I speak from experience. I have ONE FAt32 partition for read/write access from within Linux, and eveyhting else is NTFS and i'm VERY happy with it! Also linux supports read-only access to NTFS drives!

good luck!

You mean I can access my files etc?
The writeup of ntfsdos seems to indicate metadata etc, which means nothing mean to me. If my machine goes down I just want to be able to format the C: reapply my image (if ghost2002 will create a bootable floppy that works with xp ntfs) and then still have access to my files on the D & E drives.

Or, if the hd is fooked, then use ntfsdos to rescue documents, scripts etc from an ntfs partition and put them to floppy etc.

It seems to me, that unless you have a good backup system to dts tapes etc then ntfs is gonna do you more harm than good if it does go down.

NTFS just seems somewhat restricting to me.

In my own personal experience NTFS is a superior file system to FAT32

The main problem with FAT32 is that when you create a file smaller than 32K in size, it will still take up 32K of clusters, due to the limits of the file system.

FAT32 is slightly faster on smaller disks, because it doesn't have to adda ny extra flags / indexes to the files on it. However as the disk size and quantity on the disk increases, the speed with which the file system operates decreases significanlty.

However although NTFS is marginally slower for small disks, the speed does not dgrade no matter how much is on the disk, due to the MFT structure it uses.

The one drawback is that you can't read your disks in dos, although hopefully NT shouldn't pack up on you anyway