NTFS or FAT32? - DPChallenge Forums

Kamlan 28mm F1.4 MF for APS-C

12/13/2004 12:32:20 PM · #1

I was testing the iMatch software and it made a note that it would be better to use the Windows "NTFS" format instead of "FAT32".

It noted the NTFS format was better for photo database storage.

Is this true?

What are the advantages to this and are they really worth it?

Is anyone else using this option?

What would be the pros or cons in your opinion?

Plus don't you still need a special program just to read text files and etc on NTFS, (say from DOS mode)?

Seems to me the safest way to go would be FAT32?

Edit - Does Photoshop have a problem working with NTFS?

Message edited by author 2004-12-13 12:33:36.

Manic

DJI Mini 3 Pro

12/13/2004 12:37:05 PM · #2

NTFS has journalling support, which means it doesn't need to scandisk when shutdown uncleanly (eg BSOD, power outages). It's also a touch faster than FAT32, and supports larger files and partition sizes (FAT32 maxes at 2gb files and 128gb partitions, I think). The only downside to NTFS is that it's not very Linux-friendly, but if that means nothing to you, it's probably best to convert to NTFS.

giega

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

12/13/2004 12:37:22 PM · #3

NTFS. More secure, can use file compression, more efficient cluster size..

Read

Geek Talk

Message edited by author 2004-12-13 12:39:26.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/13/2004 12:37:53 PM · #4

It depends on how the database is constructed.

The main limitation of FAT32 is that no single file can be over 4GB in size. If you are using backup software to create giant archive files or are capturing Digital Video, you need NTSF. If you keep tons of folders with your photos and a "small" catalog file -- and you want to use that disk with Windows 98 - XP and Mac OS 9 - X -- use FAT32.

I'm moving archived files at work to some FAT32 FireWire disks which I can move between the Mac Server and the PC.

mcmurma

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Nikon MF 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS

12/13/2004 12:37:57 PM · #5

Here is a nice comparison.//faq.arstechnica.com/link.php?i=1227&PHPSESSID=c1dcd939a3bb74026325a374c66c0382

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/13/2004 12:38:02 PM · #6

I agree that NTFS is the way to go. It is a far superior file system. I don't have any FAT32 partitions anymore, and haven't for a couple years.

bod

12/13/2004 12:44:36 PM · #7

Originally posted by giega:

NTFS. More secure ...

*cough*

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

12/13/2004 12:48:21 PM · #8

I got an early Christmas gift :)

It is a Maxtor 250gb hard rive and I'm trying to decide which format to use? iMatch did suggest NTFS when I first ran it.

My oldest son sent me these two links:

NTFS vs FAT32

Experts Exchange - NTFS vs FAT32

He says they use it at work with no problems. He also noted that the new format/standard was NTFS5.

One concern I have is the software packages being able to read it?

Also if I have a HD problem will it be a headache in recovery?

giega

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/13/2004 12:49:13 PM · #9

Originally posted by bod:

Originally posted by giega:
NTFS. More secure ...

*cough*

Well, there is no way to stop the willing... If human created something, another will figure it out how to work around it.

Almost like the quote: As soon as you fool proof something, they invent a better idiot. ;-D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

12/13/2004 12:51:51 PM · #10

I like the sounds of that for a 250gb drive!
Scandisk would be a nightmare!

Originally posted by Manic:

giega

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/13/2004 12:55:38 PM · #11

Originally posted by RHoldenSr:

One concern I have is the software packages being able to read it?

Also if I have a HD problem will it be a headache in recovery?

A to Q1: OS will take care of it since it will read the disk for your apps.

A to Q2: It depends how bad your HD gets screwed. Once I lost my complete hard drive. I got errors that it was unformated. As security flaw *cough cough* I booted from another hardrive with Win2K and used a utility software to recover my complete drive with all data intact.

Message edited by author 2004-12-13 12:57:45.

12/13/2004 01:00:00 PM · #12

Security is not my real issue I don't think. I'm behind two firewalls and using it on a home network.

My real concern is compatiblity with all my software, backup, restore and or recovery. Especially Photoshop CS.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/13/2004 01:07:10 PM · #13

I now have 3 hard drives and I'm trying to plan how I want to set them up.

1 Fat32 - 80gb OS and apps (4 partitions)
1 FAT32 - 80gb Photo and website storage only (2 partitions)
I want to change this back to one partition
1 Thinking about NTFS? - 250gb New photo storage

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

12/13/2004 01:19:46 PM · #14

Originally posted by RHoldenSr:

My real concern is compatiblity with all my software, backup, restore and or recovery. Especially Photoshop CS.

There are no issues with Photoshop CS and NTFS. Nor are there any issues with any other Windows software that I'm aware of (except maybe some old Norton-type utilities that only understand the FAT32 file system format.)

AFAIK, any PC that Dell, HP, Compaq, etc. has shipped with Windows XP have been "pre-installed" with an NTFS file system, since that is what Microsoft recommends.

Message edited by author 2004-12-13 13:22:51.

MAK

Leica CL

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

12/13/2004 01:25:16 PM · #15

the more partitions you have on a single drive the slower it will become especially on your system drive. Go with NTFS and keep them unpartitioned in my opinion also if you have the option in format (depending on what format tool you use)try to reserve at least 8MB HDDcache I use 12 on mine and have no partitions at all C:-80GB D:-80GB E:-160GB, remember too that you will always loose about 15% after formatting a drive this is normal.

I run Photoshop CS and games and office and blah blah blah with no trouble at all, apart from the typical windows XP issues, but that aint the fault of the file system. FAT 32 is going out of date fast, we now have a AMD 64bit CPU that needs a 64bit O/S (windows XP 64 is out i believe) so that wont run in 64bit on a FAT32 system because it is only a 32bit system. but it will run 64bit on NTFS.

good luck hope this helped.