performance of fat32

Fat32 at about 32gb. That's about the size of the volumes I run fat32
on. Is fat32's performance alright at that size. I know it can handle 2.2 TB
but I don't know about performance. IIRC it can't handle a huge file say
over 1 or is it 4 GB in size. That would be for ntfs or exfat.
It seems with a 32 GB volume to take a little longer to defrag an
/already defragged/ volume with fat32 than ntfs.

Bill

Bill Cunningham wrote:

Fat32 at about 32gb. That's about the size of the volumes I run fat32
on. Is fat32's performance alright at that size. I know it can handle 2.2 TB
but I don't know about performance. IIRC it can't handle a huge file say
over 1 or is it 4 GB in size. That would be for ntfs or exfat.
It seems with a 32 GB volume to take a little longer to defrag an
/already defragged/ volume with fat32 than ntfs.

If you want/need improved performance, handling of large files, etc.,
NTFS is the only option. That's why it replaced FAT as the general
filesystem for Windows a dozen years ago.

Also, why are you still using FAT32 anyway?

Stef

I use FAT32 and maintain an NTFS data partition
for use with downloads or programs that create
large files. That works fine for me. NTFS seems to
be a bit zippier, in my unscientific observations
with a similar NTFS install, but for me the complications
are not worth the tradeoff. I own my own computer
and don't have other users, so the file restrictions
functionality in NTFS is just an unnecessary hassle
for me.
Either way, aside from bench tests I don't
think you're going to notice a lot of difference.

"Stef" wrote in message
...
Bill Cunningham wrote:

Fat32 at about 32gb. That's about the size of the volumes I run fat32
on. Is fat32's performance alright at that size. I know it can handle 2.2
TB
but I don't know about performance. IIRC it can't handle a huge file say
over 1 or is it 4 GB in size. That would be for ntfs or exfat.
It seems with a 32 GB volume to take a little longer to defrag an
/already defragged/ volume with fat32 than ntfs.

If you want/need improved performance, handling of large files, etc.,
NTFS is the only option. That's why it replaced FAT as the general
filesystem for Windows a dozen years ago.

Also, why are you still using FAT32 anyway?

I happen to like the Fats. Fat32 in particular. We have exfat too now.
On my 16 GB USB drive I use nothing else but fat32. Now on my HD my main
partition is ntfs. Large file support and all. But I have a smaller
partition that is fat32. Fat32 is a simple and effective fs I think. Ntfs is
hardly new and state of the art.

Bill

"Mayayana" wrote in message
...
I use FAT32 and maintain an NTFS data partition
for use with downloads or programs that create
large files. That works fine for me. NTFS seems to
be a bit zippier, in my unscientific observations
with a similar NTFS install, but for me the complications
are not worth the tradeoff. I own my own computer
and don't have other users, so the file restrictions
functionality in NTFS is just an unnecessary hassle
for me.
Either way, aside from bench tests I don't
think you're going to notice a lot of difference.

I have worked with them both. I know fat32 has some limitations compared
to ntfs. No huge file support. I am finding with a HD size of 127 GB or so.
Fat32 takes longer to defrag than ntfs otherwise there's really not much
difference other than internals. I have a 200 Gig Hd minus some space of
course. So it's really about 180 GB when empty. Ntfs definately doesn't take
as long to defrag. Now with over 2 TB I don't know. I have heard at certain
sizes fat32 shows weaknessess. It must be on drives larger than mine.

Bill

Bill Cunningham wrote:


"Stef" wrote in message
...
Bill Cunningham wrote:

Fat32 at about 32gb. That's about the size of the volumes I run fat32
on. Is fat32's performance alright at that size. I know it can handle 2.2
TB
but I don't know about performance. IIRC it can't handle a huge file say
over 1 or is it 4 GB in size. That would be for ntfs or exfat.
It seems with a 32 GB volume to take a little longer to defrag an
/already defragged/ volume with fat32 than ntfs.

If you want/need improved performance, handling of large files, etc.,
NTFS is the only option. That's why it replaced FAT as the general
filesystem for Windows a dozen years ago.

Also, why are you still using FAT32 anyway?

I happen to like the Fats. Fat32 in particular. We have exfat too now.
On my 16 GB USB drive I use nothing else but fat32. Now on my HD my main
partition is ntfs. Large file support and all. But I have a smaller
partition that is fat32. Fat32 is a simple and effective fs I think. Ntfs is
hardly new and state of the art.

Yes. NTFS is old -- 22 years, IIRC -- but FAT is even older. However,
NTFS is still supported. In any case, as long as you are aware of the
limitations of FAT32, and it suits your purposes, I see no reason
not to use it as long as it's not your primary filesystem.

As far as a suitable replacement for the aging, out-of-date NTFS,
there's Microsoft's ReFS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReFS ).
Unfortunately, it is just not ready for the consumer system at this
time. It's a server OS, and still fairly immature.

Stef