On-topic: I've always felt FAT32 to be slightly faster than NTFS, but they both fragment like hell so it's a moot point. NTFS also has security, which is (once again) a positive and/or a negative.Personally, I put NTFS on system and service drives, and FAT on anything else. It's journaled, so you can pretty much pull the plug on your machine and have it come back up gracefully. FAT32 isn't journaled, so if your system crashes, your OS will need to check the filesystem integrity next time 'round.NTFS supports larger files, which may be useful if you're into the DivX ripping thing. What you really need to decide on are the features you want/need.Just about any OS can read and write to FAT32, since it has no security - a positive and/or negative. In either case, speed isn't the real issue. Many years ago, I saw benchmarks that bore those figures out.However, the differences were far from significant - even less so than comparing an Athlon and a P3 at the same clockspeed. The NTFS filesystem is more sophisticated, so (again) in theory, a read from NTFS should be faster than from FAT. In theory, a write to FAT should be faster than a write to NTFS. I *should* let this thread die and stick with the thread search, but here's my two bits:FAT32 has no concept of permissions or journalling.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |