Windows XP file systems

[Kyle OMalley]

Nathan England wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> I was building a new machine for a custmer today and they 
> wanted XP installed. I formatted the drive ahead of time with 
> fat32, then XP only offered to format NTFS or leave the 
> partition alone.  So I want anyone's opinion on this.
> I heard that NTFS is newer than that used in NT and has 
> performance modifications. Does anyone know the benefits of 
> using NTFS with XP home on a typical users machine?  Or is 
> fat32 still better? Do the security advances outweigh being 
> able to boot off a floppy and recover data?
> 
> - -- 
> 
> 
> 
> Nathan England
> plug@the-arcanum.org
> 
> "A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular"
> 			--Adlai Stevenson
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQE9PfhKQ7yNnsYcupwRAqrSAJ4iU8lQ8EcJMQxH8icuSvfPFH7lgQCfepxR
> DTa7ocZSOFs3ecWA1wuFe/I=
> =2XVg
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> 
> PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

iirc:

NTFS is supposidly a journalling FS, and its supposed to avoid fragmentation
in addition to basicly supporting ACL's on files and directories (ahem, really
really doesnt freaking matter when iis runs as SYSTEM, which == root in winnt
world).

Plus, it also supports massive drives and partitions (fat32 doesnt support
over 32gb officially but i've got it installed onto a 80gb raid drive
somehow) so win2k/xp won't even give you the option to format as fat32 if
your drive is < 32gb.

end of day you've got a drive that can survive crashes w/o taking 20mins to
scandisk, supposidly has measures built in to avoid fragmentation (some
people claim otherwise, but ive seen this work in practice vs same drives
using fat32), in addition to it having fine grain ACL support and quotas it
also uses a "better" default cluster size than fat32 (512byte perhaps?).

I usually wouldn't put up this much info w/o urls but im sure it would be
easy enough for anyone who cares to check them out (somehow im thinking
nobody cares on this list? :).
-Kyle