A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

partitions got messed up.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old December 19th 14, 11:43 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
philo [_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default 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  
Old December 19th 14, 09:17 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default 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  
Old December 19th 14, 09:45 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
philo [_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default 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  
Old December 23rd 14, 02:30 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default 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  
Old December 23rd 14, 06:06 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Barry Schwarz[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default 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  
Old December 23rd 14, 07:27 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.