NTFS v FAT32
- Thread starter tibboh
- Start date
Maveric169
The Voices Talk to Me
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2002
- Messages
- 1,148
The difference between FAT32 and NTFS is nothing more file allocation size. A FAT32 uses 32 byte blocks for storing data and I believe NTFS uses 16.
So what does this mean? It means that if you have a file that is lets say 82 bytes of data in FAT32 it would take/use 3 full 32 byte data blocks, but the third data block would only have 14 bytes in it, thus wasting 18 bytes of usable HDD space. In NTFS it would use 6 16 byte data blocks with 14 bytes in the the 6th data block thus only wasting 2 bytes of HDD space.
That is the difference between the 2 file formats. Nothing else.
Every file has it's own set of data blocks that cannot be shared with any other file. (you can't have 2 8 byte files use 1 16 byte data block, both files will use a 16 byte data block each.
And now your next question. What does defragmenting do then?
OK, lets go to a more realistic file size. We will use a word document. Lets say that document is 25KB or 25,000 bytes.
25,000 bytes (using NTFS 16 byte blocks) gives us 25,000 /16=1562.5 Which means this file will use 1563 data blocks, the very last data block will only have 8 bytes in it. When we save that file the file allocation system will grab 1563 data blocks for this file.
Now lets edit the file. Lets delete a few paragraphs from our text document, so that now our file size is only 19KB or 19,000 bytes. When we save our edited file the file allocation system will still use 1563 data blocks even though we only really need 1187.5 or 1188 data blocks with the last data block using only 8 bytes. So the file allocation system is wasting 375 data blocks or 6,000 bytes of HDD space.
This is where deframent comes into play. When we run the defragment program it recalculates the number of data blocks needed per file. So it will see our word document has changed in size since it was first created and will move the file to only use the 1188 data blocks that is needed and will free up the other 375 data blocks.
Now using one file as an example really doesn't seem like allot of space (6,000 bytes compared to your 80GB HDD) but remember that you have more than 60,000 files (average) on your HDD, and over time it adds up.
Maveric169
The Voices Talk to Me
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2002
- Messages
- 1,148
Q: Is it possible to convert a FAT 32 Hard Drive to NTFS without losing all data on the drive? I like to change from fat 32 to NTFS, my system is XP PRO, how can i do that? Without the lost of my programs?
A: Standard Windows utility that is called CONVERT serves this purpose
Just go to the Command Prompt and execute the command:
C:\> CONVERT C: /fs:ntfs
Where C: is a name of the drive you want to convert.
After machine re-boot conversion process will start and you'll have your FAT32 converted to NTFS without of data loss.
A: Standard Windows utility that is called CONVERT serves this purpose
Just go to the Command Prompt and execute the command:
C:\> CONVERT C: /fs:ntfs
Where C: is a name of the drive you want to convert.
After machine re-boot conversion process will start and you'll have your FAT32 converted to NTFS without of data loss.
R
rettahc
Guest
Actually the cluster size for FAT32 varies depending on the size of the partitions.
FAT32 cluster sizes
512 - 8,191 MB is 8 sectors/cluster
8,192 - 16,383 MB is 16 sectors/cluster
16,384 - 32,767 MB is 32 sectors/cluster
32,768+ MB is 64 sectors/cluster
NTFS default cluster sizes are 8 sectors or less
Maveric169
The Voices Talk to Me
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2002
- Messages
- 1,148
Very Interesting Reading about NTFS
Well I didn't really belive you at first as I thought I had a good understanding of the different fiel systems, it appears that I was wrong not only with FAT32 but also NTFS. The concept is the same but the actual figuars are different. Here is what I found on http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/arch.htm reguarding NTFS. Good Read!
NTFS Clusters and Cluster Sizes
One of the ways that NTFS is similar to the FAT file system is that it does not manage individual 512-byte sectors on the hard disk volume independently. Instead, it groups them into blocks that are called clusters, or sometimes, allocation units. The main reason for doing this is performance: if individual sectors were used for data storage on a very large disk, many resources would be required to keep track of what was in each one, and fragmentation of the disk would be much more of a problem. For a more thorough discussion of clusters and how they work, see this discussion of clusters in the FAT file system section.
While both FAT and NTFS use clusters, they use them in a very different way, of course. This is due to the differences in the internal structures of the two file systems. Some of the performance issues associated with very large FAT file system partitions are due to the fact that the file allocation tables grow to a very large size, and FAT was never created with extremely large volumes in mind. In contrast, NTFS is designed to be able to better handle the large internal structures (such as the MFT) that occur with large partitions.
Like FAT, NTFS chooses a default cluster size based on the size of the partition. However, it uses a different method for selecting the cluster size for a partition than the default cluster assignment system for FAT16 and the one for FAT32. The table below shows the default cluster sizes that NTFS chooses for various partition sizes:
Partition Size Range (GiB)
Default Number of Sectors Per Cluster
Default Cluster Size (kiB)
<= 0.5 GB
1 Sectors
0.5 Clusters
> 0.5 to 1.0 GB
2 Sectors
1 Clusters
> 1.0 to 2.0 GB
4 Sectors
2 Clusters
> 2.0 to 4.0 GB
8 Sectors
4 Clusters
> 4.0 to 8.0 GB
16 Sectors
8 Clusters
> 8.0 to 16.0 GB
32 Sectors
16 Clusters
> 16.0 to 32.0 GB
64 Sectors
32 Clusters
> 32.0 GB
128 Sectors
64 Clusters
NTFS uses two different assignment systems, depending on the version of the operating system:
Windows NT 3.5 and Earlier: The first versions of the file system use the entire table above. So if you are running Windows NT 3.5 and create a single 6 GB partition, it will use 16 sectors per cluster (8 kiB).
Windows NT 3.51 and Later (Including Windows 2000): Only the first four entries in the table are used. The maximum cluster size is 4 kiB for all partitions over 2.0 GiB, regardless of their size.
The reason for the difference between operating systems is perhaps a bit surprising: it has to do with NTFS's built-in file-based compression. Compression is not supported on file systems with cluster sizes over 4 kiB. Since most people like this feature, the setup and formatting programs in newer Windows operating systems will not choose a cluster size over 4 kiB in size. Windows NT 3.5 and earlier do not support file-based compression, so they don't have to worry about this, and they use the full table. (In practice, it's atypical to find a hard disk much bigger than 4 GB running such an old version of Windows NT anyway...)
This is very interesting
The size of the clusters in a partition has an important impact on the performance of the system. While the table above shows the default cluster size for NTFS partitions, the default can be overridden by using the "/A" parameter of the FORMAT command. For example, "FORMAT D: /A:8192" will format the D: drive with 8,192-byte clusters. However, you should be careful before overriding the defaults and choosing a larger cluster size for a partition. You will lose the ability to use NTFS file compression, and the amount of slack will increase as well. Slack refers to wasted space due to files of variable size being placed into clusters of fixed size. The bigger the clusters, the more space that is wasted; while typically considered a FAT file system issue, this becomes relevant to NTFS as well if you use larger clusters. See this FAT file system page for a full explanation of slack. I also have written a more comprehensive discussion of NTFS partition size and cluster size selection issues. The default of 4 kiB for modern hard disk volumes is generally considered a decent overall compromise.
Note: One final issue has an impact on the cluster size of NTFS partitions, if you are using Windows NT (any version, including 4.0.) Windows NT only uses the cluster table above if you are creating a new NTFS partition. If you are converting a partition from FAT to NTFS, Windows NT will always make the NTFS volume use the smallest clusters: 512 bytes. In fact, this even applies if you initially install Windows NT to an NTFS partition, because during installation NT always first creates a FAT partition and then converts it to NTFS! Windows 2000 does not have this limitation.
So you might be able to make a NTFS system use much smaller cluster sizes to help keep the HDD clean. If anyone tries this and overrides the default cluster size let me know how it turns out.
Well I didn't really belive you at first as I thought I had a good understanding of the different fiel systems, it appears that I was wrong not only with FAT32 but also NTFS. The concept is the same but the actual figuars are different. Here is what I found on http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/arch.htm reguarding NTFS. Good Read!
NTFS Clusters and Cluster Sizes
One of the ways that NTFS is similar to the FAT file system is that it does not manage individual 512-byte sectors on the hard disk volume independently. Instead, it groups them into blocks that are called clusters, or sometimes, allocation units. The main reason for doing this is performance: if individual sectors were used for data storage on a very large disk, many resources would be required to keep track of what was in each one, and fragmentation of the disk would be much more of a problem. For a more thorough discussion of clusters and how they work, see this discussion of clusters in the FAT file system section.
While both FAT and NTFS use clusters, they use them in a very different way, of course. This is due to the differences in the internal structures of the two file systems. Some of the performance issues associated with very large FAT file system partitions are due to the fact that the file allocation tables grow to a very large size, and FAT was never created with extremely large volumes in mind. In contrast, NTFS is designed to be able to better handle the large internal structures (such as the MFT) that occur with large partitions.
Like FAT, NTFS chooses a default cluster size based on the size of the partition. However, it uses a different method for selecting the cluster size for a partition than the default cluster assignment system for FAT16 and the one for FAT32. The table below shows the default cluster sizes that NTFS chooses for various partition sizes:
Partition Size Range (GiB)
Default Number of Sectors Per Cluster
Default Cluster Size (kiB)
<= 0.5 GB
1 Sectors
0.5 Clusters
> 0.5 to 1.0 GB
2 Sectors
1 Clusters
> 1.0 to 2.0 GB
4 Sectors
2 Clusters
> 2.0 to 4.0 GB
8 Sectors
4 Clusters
> 4.0 to 8.0 GB
16 Sectors
8 Clusters
> 8.0 to 16.0 GB
32 Sectors
16 Clusters
> 16.0 to 32.0 GB
64 Sectors
32 Clusters
> 32.0 GB
128 Sectors
64 Clusters
NTFS uses two different assignment systems, depending on the version of the operating system:
Windows NT 3.5 and Earlier: The first versions of the file system use the entire table above. So if you are running Windows NT 3.5 and create a single 6 GB partition, it will use 16 sectors per cluster (8 kiB).
Windows NT 3.51 and Later (Including Windows 2000): Only the first four entries in the table are used. The maximum cluster size is 4 kiB for all partitions over 2.0 GiB, regardless of their size.
The reason for the difference between operating systems is perhaps a bit surprising: it has to do with NTFS's built-in file-based compression. Compression is not supported on file systems with cluster sizes over 4 kiB. Since most people like this feature, the setup and formatting programs in newer Windows operating systems will not choose a cluster size over 4 kiB in size. Windows NT 3.5 and earlier do not support file-based compression, so they don't have to worry about this, and they use the full table. (In practice, it's atypical to find a hard disk much bigger than 4 GB running such an old version of Windows NT anyway...)
This is very interesting
The size of the clusters in a partition has an important impact on the performance of the system. While the table above shows the default cluster size for NTFS partitions, the default can be overridden by using the "/A" parameter of the FORMAT command. For example, "FORMAT D: /A:8192" will format the D: drive with 8,192-byte clusters. However, you should be careful before overriding the defaults and choosing a larger cluster size for a partition. You will lose the ability to use NTFS file compression, and the amount of slack will increase as well. Slack refers to wasted space due to files of variable size being placed into clusters of fixed size. The bigger the clusters, the more space that is wasted; while typically considered a FAT file system issue, this becomes relevant to NTFS as well if you use larger clusters. See this FAT file system page for a full explanation of slack. I also have written a more comprehensive discussion of NTFS partition size and cluster size selection issues. The default of 4 kiB for modern hard disk volumes is generally considered a decent overall compromise.
Note: One final issue has an impact on the cluster size of NTFS partitions, if you are using Windows NT (any version, including 4.0.) Windows NT only uses the cluster table above if you are creating a new NTFS partition. If you are converting a partition from FAT to NTFS, Windows NT will always make the NTFS volume use the smallest clusters: 512 bytes. In fact, this even applies if you initially install Windows NT to an NTFS partition, because during installation NT always first creates a FAT partition and then converts it to NTFS! Windows 2000 does not have this limitation.
So you might be able to make a NTFS system use much smaller cluster sizes to help keep the HDD clean. If anyone tries this and overrides the default cluster size let me know how it turns out.
tibboh
Arte et Marte
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2002
- Messages
- 235
NFTS v FAT32
I cannot believe the response on this thread - thank you all who contributed. I think I am now well and truly converted over.
This weekend I will be installing my NEW version of XP onto my NEW HD (40Gb) - and I believe I am correct in assuming I can direct XP to install with NFTS.
The only question I have left is: I have my backup files on an OLD slave HD, and I want to tranfer them onto my NEW slave HD (80 GB), which Im sure I can "Ghost" them with enclosed WD Data Lifeguard Tools.
The thing is, should I convert my NEW slave HD to NFTS, then transfer the files over onto it - OR transfer files over first - then convert to NFTS? Sound simple, but I cannot loose the data (using partition magic to do this task?)
The final (stupid) question is, will there be no conflicting data when transferring files to a non NFTS computer - or vice versa, loading them from a non NFTS computer onto mine?
Thank you again for bearing with me - this has been a GREAT site, having self built my first computer (and it runs!!) with the help of you guys.
I cannot believe the response on this thread - thank you all who contributed. I think I am now well and truly converted over.
This weekend I will be installing my NEW version of XP onto my NEW HD (40Gb) - and I believe I am correct in assuming I can direct XP to install with NFTS.
The only question I have left is: I have my backup files on an OLD slave HD, and I want to tranfer them onto my NEW slave HD (80 GB), which Im sure I can "Ghost" them with enclosed WD Data Lifeguard Tools.
The thing is, should I convert my NEW slave HD to NFTS, then transfer the files over onto it - OR transfer files over first - then convert to NFTS? Sound simple, but I cannot loose the data (using partition magic to do this task?)
The final (stupid) question is, will there be no conflicting data when transferring files to a non NFTS computer - or vice versa, loading them from a non NFTS computer onto mine?
Thank you again for bearing with me - this has been a GREAT site, having self built my first computer (and it runs!!) with the help of you guys.
Zedric
NTFS Guru
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2002
- Messages
- 4,006
Re: NFTS v FAT32
That's what we're here for! :happy:
Of course. NTFS is even default. Make sure you do the quick format so you won't have to wait for hours!
Convert the disk without the files (or rather make it NTFS when partitioning it). I will probably make no difference, but I'd feel better doing it that way.
No problems whatsoever.
That's what we're here for! :happy:
Members online
No members online now.
Affiliates
Latest profile posts
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone.
Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.