Fat32 vs NTFS

[Win_98]

Which is more efficient?

[[Neo770]]

I have found NTFS to be much more efficient with space, I can format the drive to use 512 byte clusters and I find that I have to defrag in a little less then a FAT 32 drive. The only down side to NTFS is that its a little slower then fat32 but not much. This is useing windows 2000 as well.

For more information go here NTFS vs FAT32

[Ironforge]

Additionally, you can visit www.storagereview.com for information regarding performance. Most of the reviewed drives there include benchmarks for both 95/98 and NT.

[KillerBug]

Thats is why there are no win9x driverz for my raid card, they say it does like 3 TB, so the only way you could actualy do that is with ntfs, but it sux that I can't use it in win9x because it is only powering one drive now, and not a 3tb drive either.

[Win_98]

When they say 2 terabytes
I don't think they mean 2048 gigabyte
There is no way you can have that much of
a large file system with fat32 it just isn't possible.
There a limitation to fat32 they are as follow
Cluster still will grew in size as you increase it on a single partition it just that it is 32 times more efficient then fat16
4K cluster only up to 8gig
8K cluster up to 16gig
16K cluster up to 32gig
32K cluster up to 64gig
Anyone who has larger then 8.4 gig harddrive know what I am talking about.
2 terrabyte mean it is 2,048,000 maximum allocation units not 2048 gig some folk have misunderstood the concept.
Fat16 has a limit of 65K allocation unit
Multiply that by 32 and you get 2 million terrabytes with fat32.
[This message has been edited by Win_98 (edited 07-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Win_98 (edited 07-15-2000).][This message has been edited by Win_98 (edited 07-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Win_98 (edited 07-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Win_98 (edited 07-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Win_98 (edited 07-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Win_98 (edited 07-15-2000).]