Breath - Windows NTFS vs FAT32 - DPChallenge Forums

01/28/2006 03:31:32 PM · #1

As I sit and watch the brown truck non-delivery status :-( of my new 250Gb external drive and since I am not a windows bod....

What format is better for saving large RAW files? I will NOT use this for editing and the files will NOT be updated/deleted on this drive, it's mostly add add add as a hot backup for RAW files (and maybe some MP3's).

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

01/28/2006 03:32:56 PM · #2

I'm not sure but i think xp has to be installed onto an ntfs formated drive.

01/28/2006 03:34:21 PM · #3

Originally posted by kyebosh:

I'm not sure but i think xp has to be installed onto an ntfs formated drive.

This is not the drive for anything apart from adding RAW (and maybe MP3) files for the first level backup. No windows or photoshop swap files e.t.c.

btw - Should have added; I have no need for the security/compression benefits that I believe are in NTFS.

Message edited by author 2006-01-28 15:35:02.

01/28/2006 03:37:47 PM · #4

FAT32 is a superior file system to NTFS, but if you are going to be accessing this drive from other systems (ie Mac or Linux) NTFS may be a better choice.

wavelength

Nikon D300

01/28/2006 03:39:13 PM · #5

NTFS is inherently more stable and has better error checking, but it will slow down read/write times. Since you're using this purely for backup, use NTFS.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

01/28/2006 03:43:04 PM · #6

//www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm
//www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/russel_october01.mspx

Message edited by author 2006-01-28 15:43:16.

01/28/2006 03:53:23 PM · #7

Thanx guys.... Looks like it will be NTFS. The biggies seem to be better performance on larger drives and better fault tolerence (at the cost of performance but always handy on a backup drive:). I guess it will come FAT32, so converting we will go before I start the mass copy.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3,5-6,3 Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF] macro for Canon

01/28/2006 04:09:57 PM · #8

Originally posted by robs:

Usually most companies will not pre-format the drive, they never know who will be using it on what OS, so pre-loading a format wouold be silly I think. at least, I've never gotten a drive that was pre-formatted...

Nokia N900

01/28/2006 04:13:52 PM · #9

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

FAT32 is a superior file system to NTFS, but if you are going to be accessing this drive from other systems (ie Mac or Linux) NTFS may be a better choice.

WTF?

That's 100% true if you negate the entire thing.

ignite

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/28/2006 04:18:31 PM · #10

NTFS is much better than FAT32. NTFS has been the default file system for Windows NT, and is nothing new. XP has tons of options that only work on NTFS, like protecting your files, network security etc. But for a purely backup drive, either will do.

polkop

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

01/28/2006 04:27:41 PM · #11

Yep it is NTFS all the way:)

01/28/2006 04:38:28 PM · #12

Originally posted by m:

WTF?

That's 100% true if you negate the entire thing.

I simply don't believe the loss of read/write speeds, more overhead, and less available space is prudent for this application. It's not like a removable HD needs security or access rights priveleges assigned to files.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

01/28/2006 04:59:41 PM · #13

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I believe for backup purposes NTFS is just more stable, and the faster read times is only on small volumes. If you want to put this sucker at a 250gig partitiion (okay, like 240 with overhead) NTFS will actually read faster because of the way that it stores files. Also, fat32 has a much smaller file limit. It's not the priviledges, it the other crap, but hey, you do whatever you like or feel more comfortable with on your own stuff. I do belive though that the benifits of NTFS-5 outweigh the any benefits of FAT32

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

01/28/2006 05:07:27 PM · #14

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by m:

WTF?

That's 100% true if you negate the entire thing.

I simply don't believe the loss of read/write speeds, more overhead, and less available space is prudent for this application. It's not like a removable HD needs security or access rights priveleges assigned to files.

The read/write speeds are actually faster for larger (photos) files with the larger cluster size of the NTFS file system. There is more overhead for security, but the use of security is obviously optional. Larger clusters allow the system to read more information in one pass of the drive. The 'space' issue is really irrelevant unless you are storing very large numbers of very small files (smaller than 64k).

Nokia N900

Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3,5-6,3 Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF] macro for Canon

01/28/2006 05:10:43 PM · #15

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Can you indicate what the preformance and overheads entail?

While old, this benchmark shows NTFS consistently doing better, although that could also be explained from a difference in the operating system. If you intend on using large partitions, which is why one would use FAT32 instead of FAT16, you'll be doing several look-ups for each file--NTFS uses data structures that are designed to speed this up.

There is a chart that indicates the differences between NTFS and FAT. Admittedly, I am less familiar with NTFS than I am with other filesystems, but even just by looking at that chart I cannot see how you could defend your statement. The second part:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

if you are going to be accessing this drive from other systems (ie [sic] Mac or Linux) NTFS may be a better choice.

is even less understandable, as neither Mac OSX (Darwin) or Linux fully support NTFS given its closed nature, while FAT32 is widely understood and implemented.

01/28/2006 05:19:06 PM · #16

OK, I'll admit when I'm wrong... :-)

Don't get too used to it though , not wrong very often ... LOL :-P

01/30/2006 11:20:58 PM · #17

Thanks guys - My external drive has been re-formatted in NTFS (it was formatted FAT32 out of the box) and now has about 30Gb and growing quickly sitting on it. Will have about 100Gb by tomorrow morning....

Message edited by author 2006-01-30 23:21:37.

_eug

Nikon D50

01/30/2006 11:54:27 PM · #18

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

OK, I'll admit when I'm wrong... :-)

Don't get too used to it though , not wrong very often ... LOL :-P

Gasp! Can I get that in writing? Oh wait. It IS in writing. ;)