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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
partitions got messed up.
On 12/18/2014 08:03 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
"philo " wrote in message ... I ignore the MFT and it ignores me but like I said, were it not for the MFT some of the data recovery jobs I've done would never have been possible. I have seen near miracles happen on severely damaged drives. There seems to be something else I have noticed. Ntfs seems to fragment much more quickly than fat32 when dual booting with a linux partition. I am assuming the reporting is correct. Otherwise I've noticed with ntfs and *not* using linux ntfs does not fragment as quickly as fat32. Now I had all kinds of trouble with Fat16. Maybe it was the speed of the floppy drives back then in reading 3.5" floppies or what. Again it's not that I have anything against ntfs. I have used it quite a bit. And will again. But not lately. I'm really experimenting with the two also. And portability across platforms. Linux reads and writes to ntfs just fine now so that's not an issue. Bill My main machine runs Linux and dual boots with XP. The Linux installation has /zero/ effect on XP The only possible reason for using Fat32 would be for an external drive that you might want to use to transfer data between a Mac and/or a Linux machine. Of course, it would not be good for transferring files over 4 gigs (such as a video) Only recently have I realized that exFat is a good way to get over that barrier |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
partitions got messed up.
"philo " wrote in message ... On 12/18/2014 08:03 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote: There seems to be something else I have noticed. Ntfs seems to fragment much more quickly than fat32 when dual booting with a linux partition. I am assuming the reporting is correct. Otherwise I've noticed with ntfs and *not* using linux ntfs does not fragment as quickly as fat32. Now I had all kinds of trouble with Fat16. Maybe it was the speed of the floppy drives back then in reading 3.5" floppies or what. Again it's not that I have anything against ntfs. I have used it quite a bit. And will again. But not lately. I'm really experimenting with the two also. And portability across platforms. Linux reads and writes to ntfs just fine now so that's not an issue. Bill My main machine runs Linux and dual boots with XP. The Linux installation has /zero/ effect on XP Well I copy files back and forth from ext3 usually and fat32 or ntfs. After doing that a few times ntfs is ready for defrag. I check fat32 and it seems to go longer without needing defragged as I copy files between fat32 and ext3. I rarely use ext4 either. Too much overhead and I don't see where extents and added things help much more than Ted's design for the simple journal. Maybe I'm wrong. The only possible reason for using Fat32 would be for an external drive that you might want to use to transfer data between a Mac and/or a Linux machine. Maybe carrying data on a USB Fat32 might even "outperfom" NTFS. If not I don't know that all the NTFS goodies would be so "economical" on a say 30-40 GB USB Of course, it would not be good for transferring files over 4 gigs (such as a video) I see your point there. Large file support isn't there. Only recently have I realized that exFat is a good way to get over that barrier Yes I know of exfat too. It think it might be a kind of Fat 64 or attempt at it. Many are pointing to btrfs and xfs as the best of modern filesystems. But I don't pay much attention to those as XP doesn't run on them. Bill |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
partitions got messed up.
On 12/19/2014 02:17 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
My main machine runs Linux and dual boots with XP. The Linux installation has /zero/ effect on XP Well I copy files back and forth from ext3 usually and fat32 or ntfs. After doing that a few times ntfs is ready for defrag. I check fat32 and it seems to go longer without needing defragged as I copy files between fat32 and ext3. I rarely use ext4 either. Too much overhead and I don't see where extents and added things help much more than Ted's design for the simple journal. Maybe I'm wrong. I do access my XP partition from Linux and write to it etc and have not experienced problems. As to ext3 vs ext4 they are essentially the same thing. You can actually just mount an ext3 partition as ext4 with no upgrade being necessary The only possible reason for using Fat32 would be for an external drive that you might want to use to transfer data between a Mac and/or a Linux machine. Maybe carrying data on a USB Fat32 might even "outperfom" NTFS. If not I don't know that all the NTFS goodies would be so "economical" on a say 30-40 GB USB Of course, it would not be good for transferring files over 4 gigs (such as a video) I see your point there. Large file support isn't there. Only recently have I realized that exFat is a good way to get over that barrier Yes I know of exfat too. It think it might be a kind of Fat 64 or attempt at it. Many are pointing to btrfs and xfs as the best of modern filesystems. But I don't pay much attention to those as XP doesn't run on them. Bill |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
partitions got messed up.
Just thought I'd say I formated with NTFS yesterday. Tody I installed
linux and checked ntfs fragmentation. It was a mess. Over 2.4 G of fragmented files. Whew. Bill |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
partitions got messed up.
On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 20:30:57 -0500, "Bill Cunningham"
wrote: Just thought I'd say I formated with NTFS yesterday. Tody I installed linux and checked ntfs fragmentation. It was a mess. Over 2.4 G of fragmented files. Whew. I thought linux used Unix file systems. Isn't NTFS specific to Windows? -- Remove del for email |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
partitions got messed up.
"Barry Schwarz" wrote in message ... I thought linux used Unix file systems. Isn't NTFS specific to Windows? You know what I mean Barry. I loaded linux on another partition. My windows system was clean installed on NTFS. B |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|