Windows XP file systems

""better" default cluster size than fat32 (512byte perhaps?)."

I believe ntfs is 4k and fat32 is 5k or probably vice versa, you can get
smaller, but you start taking huge hits on disk I/O.

you also wouldn't have defrag if ntfs was fragmentation proof. I've had to
defrag 100+ gig RAID arrays that took 6 hours. No, I didn't stick around to
watch and charge the customer ;-)

anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle OMalley" <kyle@kyleo.net>
To: <plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Windows XP file systems


> Nathan England wrote:
> > > >
> > 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
> > > >
> > ________________________________________________
> > 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
> ________________________________________________
> 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