Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by andres4514, Feb 28, 2006.
Which 1 is better for my harddrives??
Whats the diference between fat32 and NTFS??
If you are running XP use NTFS.
Thanks....also how can i make another harddrive the primary partition for my computer?>?
Install windows on that drive and set it as master. Then, don't touch it and use another drive for all your storage.
NTFS is the superior format, but FAT32 can be read by most every operating system currently in use -- UNIX, Win98 (yes, some people still use it), Solaris, Linux, OSX...
If you ever make or buy an external hard drive, it's probably better to format it with FAT32. Only format a disk with NTFS if you can be sure it will always be hooked up to a machine that runs WinNT/2000/XP/Vista.
I have an 120GB USB formatted reiserfs. But it used to be FAT32.
As far as Windows is concerned though, there should be no question: go with NTFS (unless you're not on 2k/XP/2003/vista for some reason)
i use ntfs, because i tend to create or download files that are bigger than 4gb. usually iso files.
fat32 won't handle files bigger than 4gb.
mm...I dunno about that. Now that you mention it, I do recall that FAT32 isn't supposed to handle files that big, but I've backed up whole computer systems onto my FAT32 portable disk, and they've gone as high as maybe 12GB or so. Maybe Windows NT can do some magic to make FAT32 cooperate.
I have NTFS on my windows and storage partition, and ext3 on my linux partition.. I wish I had gone with FAT32 for the storage so I could write to it from linux.
You could always back up the data, reformat the storage partition, and copy the data back on...
You can also get a windows driver enabling ext r/w support. I prefer to use ext storage with that driver than fat storage.
ReiserFS is and has been proven ONLY good in DB applications...
Thank heaven we have you to tell us the one and only right solution to any problem.
however I could swear there are disk utilities available so that you can access NTFS in *nix.
On large drives NTFS is much more suitable, but for smaller drives performance can be better with FAT32. However, most modern hard drives you'll get will be >40GB at least so NTFS is the way to go.
There are, but most of them involve utilising files from an existing Windows installation, and write access hasn't been perfected. I think Microsoft changed the files required for this process when they released XP's SP2.
NTFS write-protects the disk's table of contents such that only an authorized Windows NT user can change them. Or something like that. Granted, I suppose a utility could just hack apart the encoding and change the table of contents anyway, but it's a better idea overall to use a less-paranoid format in the first place.
The linux NTFS drivers *can* do write access, but its still experimental, and has been known to totally corrupt NTFS partitions.
I'd never even considered looking for windows drivers for ext3 rw access, Apothis, any good places to find them? How reliable are they, I'd assume very good since ext3 is open source, whereas MS deeply protects the NTFS specs?
It doesn't respect unix permissions or allow for defragging. It's pretty much just r/w.
That's not really any kind of problem. It's pretty unreasonable to expect two completely different operating systems to cooperate on r/w/x permissions, especially when the authentication services don't even recognize each other's user accounts. Besides, chances are that nobody would be using an ext3-formatted disk unless they have a serviceable Linux install that they could defrag with, or unless their Linux crashed and they need to salvage their personal files.
really? its been experemental for YEARS then. I never had a problem with it agessss ago.
Ever since 2.6.9 and up,
the NTFS has been solid and no problems what so EVAR !!
even compile the .c kernel module for your processor and you'll really fly with your network/NTFS speeds
We do NOTHING BUT NTFS network writes via SAN/HBA etc to large IBM Sharks, StorageTek's etc. and it works fine.