Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: A big fat, NTFS question  (Read 2662 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline blobranaTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 4743
    • Show only replies by blobrana
    • http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/blobrana/home.html
A big fat, NTFS question
« on: August 11, 2005, 12:21:40 AM »
Hum,
I run winuae with a workbench installed into normal PC folders (rather than use a virtual HF or HD) a system that I’ve found to work extremely well.

However, I run that Hard drive that the folders are in with  FAT32  rather than NTFS.
(windows XP is on another drive with NTFS)…

Any thoughts about using NTFS over FAT?
(Apart from windows read speed/stability)

What do other ppl use?

Offline Darklight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2004
  • Posts: 263
    • Show only replies by Darklight
Re: A big fat, NTFS question
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2005, 12:33:25 AM »
Well, apart from NTFS being more stable (I've had a couple of FAT32 drives lose their table of contents, and they're still sitting here for me to recover the data at some point), I haven't really found any great advantage to NTFS over FAT32.  Going over the 137gb barrier is good, but unless you've got a hard drive bigger than that, (I do video editing, so I need NTFS) then you don't really need NTFS - it's less compatible, harder to recover if it dies (you need another XP machine to put the drive in, whereas Linux can write to FAT32 partitions) and overall, not necessary unless you're after the extra stability or the extra space, IMO.  :-)
 

Offline whabang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 7270
    • Show only replies by whabang
Re: A big fat, NTFS question
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2005, 08:10:09 AM »
NTFS, FFS! :-P

NTFS is faster and more reliable, and it reduces the fragmentation of the drive (well, not NTFS itself, but Windows' NTFS handler is better than it's FAT32-handler).

You won't notice much difference in UAE, though.
Beating the dead horse since 2002.
 

  • Guest
Re: A big fat, NTFS question
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2005, 11:02:16 AM »
Quote

blobrana wrote:
Hum,
I run winuae with a workbench installed into normal PC folders (rather than use a virtual HF or HD) a system that I’ve found to work extremely well.

However, I run that Hard drive that the folders are in with  FAT32  rather than NTFS.
(windows XP is on another drive with NTFS)…

Any thoughts about using NTFS over FAT?
(Apart from windows read speed/stability)

What do other ppl use?


WinUAE allows all amiga file-protection bits to be supported fully when using NTFS AFAIK.
 

Offline blobranaTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 4743
    • Show only replies by blobrana
    • http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/blobrana/home.html
Re: A big fat, NTFS question
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2005, 06:36:31 PM »
@whabang
Yeah, NTFS is more reliable,
 but i find FAT  gives slightly better read speeds on smaller drives, and I also use that drive for my windows paging file.

Also by `upgrading` the file system the default cluster size will be 512 bytes instead of the 4kb that a clean format of NTFS provides.

So I think I’ll personally  be sticking with the fat solution until it goes pear shaped…