Formatting new HDD
-
FAT32 will be alot more compatable with other operating systems, and it will also be slightly faster (depending on how slow/fast the control card is) NTFS will let you have things like permissions (which isnt very secure), EFS encryption (again not super secure). NTFS might be better incase of powerloss when copying files... If you some folders that have *very* long names on a NTFS system, then windows might cut them down on a FAT32 system. Also, if you have alot of NTFS files with data in the hidden NTFS streams, it might annoy you when copying files, it will confirm that some NTFS data may be lost (which isnt important, but annoying..) Incase of dataloss FAT32 files will probably be easier to recover. I think I use FAT32 on my external drive, I use it as a backup. Dont forget to use a program like Seagate SeaTools for Windows[^] to test the hard drive for bad sectors, to be sure it is 100% perfect.
//Johannes
-
Ah yea thats true too no files larger then ~4GB, it doesnt even want to read them right? (some low level program should be able to get them out though..)
//Johannes
I don't know, I actually discovered that trying to copy an Iso to a Mac compatible partition (FAT32). No idea if it is only right or both, right and read. Just a question. If FAT32 is faster and easier to recover loss data. Why all NT servers or 2003, etc run on NTFS filesystems? Why not to format and install on a FAT32? Maybe just because of the maximum file size issue?
-
I don't know, I actually discovered that trying to copy an Iso to a Mac compatible partition (FAT32). No idea if it is only right or both, right and read. Just a question. If FAT32 is faster and easier to recover loss data. Why all NT servers or 2003, etc run on NTFS filesystems? Why not to format and install on a FAT32? Maybe just because of the maximum file size issue?
The max file size limit may be an issue, it probably is with *very* large page files.. If the Windows server is going serve files using the windows file sharing then NTFS is a must, as it is the most dynamic and easy to use way to set file permissions for many many users. I consider FAT32 to be a easier file system to recover incase of bad sectors/power loss, as it is more compatable with many low-level restore programs. (In which NTFS can cause confusion) (FAT32 can get problems easier though..) On the other hand, NTFS may in some cases be less likely to data corruption upon power loss. (ive heard that, but no first-hand experience) NTFS also uses clusters in a bettery way, which saves space.
//Johannes
-
The max file size limit may be an issue, it probably is with *very* large page files.. If the Windows server is going serve files using the windows file sharing then NTFS is a must, as it is the most dynamic and easy to use way to set file permissions for many many users. I consider FAT32 to be a easier file system to recover incase of bad sectors/power loss, as it is more compatable with many low-level restore programs. (In which NTFS can cause confusion) (FAT32 can get problems easier though..) On the other hand, NTFS may in some cases be less likely to data corruption upon power loss. (ive heard that, but no first-hand experience) NTFS also uses clusters in a bettery way, which saves space.
//Johannes
-
Ok, I see for a file server. Now, if I want to set up a web server where I won't manage files of 4GB, maybe the thing to do then would be to use a FAT32 filesystem since it is more performant?
Back in the day I also thought about using FAT32 instead of NTFS on my server, so i converted it to FAT32. I didnt notice any change in speeds. Its kind of hard to know to know under what circumstances it will get faster.. But it probably depends on how fast the server itself is, how much RAM it has, how many files it is servering, and how many clients it has (accessing different files..) I dont think that the speed difference will be worth the downgrade in reliability. (NTFS is really alot more reliable) I later converted my server back to NTFS. (and no change in speed) Its better that a server that is is a few hundred microseconds slower, then having a less reliable file system... This is kind of like the Linux comparing of EXT3 and EFS, where the same theory applies (EXT3 = slower, more reliable) Its really good practice to use the Seagate SeaTools for DOS[^] a bootable CD/floppy that checks the disks for bad sectors on servers (or normal desktops). Dont forget to sometimes use the good old windows Scandisk, as it looks more for problems in the the NTFS/FAT32 files/structure.
//Johannes
-
Back in the day I also thought about using FAT32 instead of NTFS on my server, so i converted it to FAT32. I didnt notice any change in speeds. Its kind of hard to know to know under what circumstances it will get faster.. But it probably depends on how fast the server itself is, how much RAM it has, how many files it is servering, and how many clients it has (accessing different files..) I dont think that the speed difference will be worth the downgrade in reliability. (NTFS is really alot more reliable) I later converted my server back to NTFS. (and no change in speed) Its better that a server that is is a few hundred microseconds slower, then having a less reliable file system... This is kind of like the Linux comparing of EXT3 and EFS, where the same theory applies (EXT3 = slower, more reliable) Its really good practice to use the Seagate SeaTools for DOS[^] a bootable CD/floppy that checks the disks for bad sectors on servers (or normal desktops). Dont forget to sometimes use the good old windows Scandisk, as it looks more for problems in the the NTFS/FAT32 files/structure.
//Johannes
-
Ok, I taught that the speed increase could be noticed. I'll stay with NTFS. I'm doing a full scandisk right now ;P
-
:) Dont forget to use a low level full sector check like that of SeaTools for DOS One might report errors while the other doesnt.
//Johannes
-
I just downloaded it. I was wondering if it works with any HD or just Seagate? Maybe I should download the Samsung tool? (Mines are samsung)
-
Seagate has kind programmers, it works for all disks. There is nothing wrong with also using a utility from samsung, as maybe it has yet another way of low level access or other self tests.
//Johannes
-
I don't know, I actually discovered that trying to copy an Iso to a Mac compatible partition (FAT32). No idea if it is only right or both, right and read. Just a question. If FAT32 is faster and easier to recover loss data. Why all NT servers or 2003, etc run on NTFS filesystems? Why not to format and install on a FAT32? Maybe just because of the maximum file size issue?
NTFS is more fault tolerant. Unlike fat32 you don't need to do a scandisk every time the PC crashes. It also supports smaller cluster sizes which significantly reduces wasted space with small files. The security is probably the main reason it's used on servers though.
-- Help Stamp Out and Abolish Redundancy The preceding is courtesy of the Department of Unnecessarily Redundant Repetition Department.
-
FAT32 will be alot more compatable with other operating systems, and it will also be slightly faster (depending on how slow/fast the control card is) NTFS will let you have things like permissions (which isnt very secure), EFS encryption (again not super secure). NTFS might be better incase of powerloss when copying files... If you some folders that have *very* long names on a NTFS system, then windows might cut them down on a FAT32 system. Also, if you have alot of NTFS files with data in the hidden NTFS streams, it might annoy you when copying files, it will confirm that some NTFS data may be lost (which isnt important, but annoying..) Incase of dataloss FAT32 files will probably be easier to recover. I think I use FAT32 on my external drive, I use it as a backup. Dont forget to use a program like Seagate SeaTools for Windows[^] to test the hard drive for bad sectors, to be sure it is 100% perfect.
//Johannes
use NTFS can create file which size bigger than 4GB, and it can support maximal 2TB disk size,so in earlier days only server system use it.