If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
performance of fat32
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
performance of fat32
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
performance of fat32
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
performance of fat32
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
performance of fat32
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|