External Hard drive Q

o_dragonjojo · 01-22-2007, 06:32 PM

I picked up a 500 gb Western Digital Mybook external harddrive. I was doing a disk defrag today on my comp's C drive and I saw that my C drive is NTFS and my external is FAT32. I've already put a good 80 gigs on the external and from what i've seen people say to switch it to NTFS.

Would you guys say i'm ok leaving it as FAT32 or should I look into transferring the files to my regular comp and changing the external to NTFS?

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 01-22-2007, 06:35 PM

I prefer NTFS. I think the problem you may have is that you'll need to reformat to change the formatting and means losing what's there now. There may be a work around but I cannot recall atm due to a massive headache.

o_gambit · 01-22-2007, 06:39 PM

i want to say i reformated mine to NTFS and didnt lose anything...

but i would wait for an answer from somebody more experienced....

o_jinx · 01-22-2007, 07:57 PM

I think Win98 only works with FAT32, if that's a concern for you. NTFS is newer, and I believe faster and more efficient. If it's just a storage drive, it probably doesn't matter much either way I would think.

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 01-22-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinx

I think Win98 only works with FAT32, if that's a concern for you. NTFS is newer, and I believe faster and more efficient. If it's just a storage drive, it probably doesn't matter much either way I would think.

It's also supposedly less likely to mess up files than FAT with better recover capabilities. Anyone who's dealt with a problem with the hardware extraction layer may suspect that this is open to question.

o_soundchaser · 01-22-2007, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quote

Is NTFS better than FAT/FAT32?
In brief, yes. It's far more robust, it supports Unicode filenames, proper security, compression and encryption. Its main fault is that it can only be read from Windows NT, 2000 or XP, i.e. you can't use a DOS boot disk and then read your data.

I know for a fact that if you are downloading a file that is 4.3 gigs on a fat32 file system on a torrent program that it will hang at 90%. But this will not happen on NTFS.
It has something to do with FAT32 handling a file under 4 gigs and can't over 4 gigs.
I dunno.....have to google for the exact reason.

I changed my file system on C: from FAT32 to NTFS with no issues. Twas easy.

**mervaka** · 01-22-2007, 08:39 PM

also, dont UNIX based systems have a strong dislike for NTFS?

o_soundchaser · 01-22-2007, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mervaka

also, dont UNIX based systems have a strong dislike for NTFS?

I am able to READ NTFS....but that's it....you can't change anything.

Unix doesn't like NTFS...correct

o_pixel · 01-22-2007, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundchaser

OH HELL YES!!!! I am able to READ NTFS....but that's it....you can't change anything.

Unix doesn't like NTFS...correct

there are ways of doing it

o_soundchaser · 01-22-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pixel

there are ways of doing it

I knew somebody was going to say that.

Would you care to explain how to do it?
How to read and write back and forth *NIX to NTFS?

I'd really like to know cuz it would save me alot of grief.

o_bubbles · 01-22-2007, 09:52 PM

Converting your harddrive to NTFS won't cost you anything but time. Main thing about NTFS is that it can handle files larger than around 4 GB, it's supposedly more stable and a bit faster aaand there was some backup option.

o_mooga · 01-22-2007, 11:42 PM

NTFS hates *nix.
NOT the other way around.

It's because M$ hates everyone and LOVES money.

o_deadly furby · 01-22-2007, 11:59 PM

Here's how to convert from FAT32 to NTFS.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314097/EN-US/

Read thoroughly before deciding to do it.

o_someoldguy · 01-23-2007, 12:00 AM

For information and downloads about Linux and NTFS

http://www.linux-ntfs.org/

Remember.... Google is your friend.

o_jinx · 01-23-2007, 02:14 AM

The 4GB limit for FAT32 could be a real problem if you were dealing with things like DVD iso's.

Does anyone have a Flash Drive that is NTFS? Mine is FAT32, and it won't allow me to reformat it to NTFS. Not a big deal on a 1GB drive, but as Flash Drives get bigger we're going to want NTFS on them I would think.

o_mooga · 01-23-2007, 04:30 AM

But I use thumb drives to bring things from one platform to another.
NTFS might be better in WINDOWS, but FAT32 is more compatible.

o_dragonjojo · 01-23-2007, 07:11 PM

I really have no plans of storing files over 4 gigs on the drive so I think i'm alright in FAT32. So far i've had no problems.
I can change to NTFS and apparently I *shouldn't* lose the files on there.

I'm just wondering if the risk is worth the benefits.

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 01-23-2007, 07:12 PM

drum roll please

o_bubbles · 01-23-2007, 07:30 PM

It's really no big of a deal if you're not handling files over 4GB. FAT32 will do you just fine.

o_someoldguy · 01-23-2007, 07:35 PM

To clear all this up NTFS vs. FAT32, from http://faq.arstechnica.com/link.php?...7b77c8e37cbd2f

(my additions in italics)

NOTE: There are plenty of articles on the web about NTFS and FAT32... I just picked this one because it's less geeky and still factual.
-----------------

The great debate rages on as to which is better...NT File System (NTFS) or File Allocation Table 32-bit (FAT32). If you are reading this, then you probably haven’t yet decided which to use, and my goal in writing this is to help you make that decision. Each file system has its pros and cons, but first let's start with the obvious...which Operating Systems can read which file systems? If an OS you want to run can’t read or write to NTFS or FAT32, then you might as well not read any further (unless you’re curious, like me =)

Read/Write
Windows XP Yes/Yes
Windows NT 4.0 Yes/Yes
Windows 2000 Yes/Yes
Linux Yes/Experimental a work in progress

A brief history of the FAT file system
The FAT is simply a "database" of where each file is physically located on the disk, so that the OS can read your data. The reason that FAT went from 12-bit years ago to the 32-bits used today is...the larger the disk gets, the larger the number the FAT has to use to be able to access all the data. All data on a disk is divided up into chunks, called clusters. A cluster on a FAT formatted disk can range in size from 2k to 64k (or larger if your sectors are larger than the normal 512 bytes), depending on the size of the disk. Each of these clusters has an address in the FAT, and the more clusters you have, the larger the address has to become. The maximum size for a FAT16 partition was 4G, because 4G divided up into 64k clusters comes out to 1111111111111111 (65535), which is the largest number possible with a 16 bits. FAT32 removes that limitation by switching to a 32-bit addressing system, meaning that (in theory) you could have a single partition that takes up 4,294,967,295 clusters, or 134,218G.

Now for the Pros and Cons:

NTFS/FAT32
Security built-in Yes/No
Journaled Yes/No
Support for multiple data streams Yes/No
Built-in file compression Yes/No
Support for partitions > 2G Yes/Yes
Readable and writable by most major OS's out-of-the-box No/Yes

More general info...
Speed:
NTFS and FAT32 are very similar in speed, but as the size of the disk increases, the gap widens. NTFS actually stores small files in the Master File Table (MFT), to increase performance. Rather than moving the heads to the beginning of the disk to read the MFT entry, and then to the middle or end of the disk to read the actual file, the heads simply move to the beginning of the disk, and read both at the same time. This can account for a considerable increase in speed when reading lots of small files.

Journaling:
NTFS is a journaled file system, meaning that it keeps a journal of all changes made. If you lose power in the middle of writing some data, when the machine comes back up, it can roll back changes, according to its journal. This doesn't necessarily mean that you won't lose any data at all, but it means that if part of the MFT is corrupted, it can be fixed.
If the same thing were to happen to a FAT32 partition, and part of the FAT were corrupted, the partition would be unmountable (unreadable), and you would lose everything on the disk. Note: not perfect but better than not having it.

Security:
FAT32 offers no security whatsoever, whereas NTFS offers very good security. All files and directories can be secured with a great degree of granularity. You can specify who can read, write, list, and change files, read/write permissions, read/write attributes (read-only, etc.), and a few others. The thing to keep in mind here is...all of this security is easily circumventable with a Linux boot disk. Physical security is the most important security.

Data Streams:
Another feature of NTFS is something called "data streams." A data stream is a kind of "file within a file." Data can be separated into multiple streams, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is for compatibility with Mac's. Mac's use a "resource fork" to keep track of what application created a file, and therefore what application to open it with, among other things. When you put a Mac file onto an NTFS volume, the actual data from the file is put into a primary data stream, and the resource fork is put into an alternate data stream. This way you don't have to have extra files laying around just to keep track of the resource fork. And it's all transparent. For more info on data streams, you can visit this page.

Compression:
A commonly-used feature of NTFS is file compression. Many people have the idea that compression is bad, because of the way most compression is done. In Windows 98, for example, if you compressed a drive, it would take everything on that drive, and put it into one big file, using a special driver to make it look like all the files were still separate. This saved a lot of space, because there was no more cluster slack, but it also meant that if any part of the file got corrupted, all your data was gone. NTFS compression is far better. It compresses each file individually, and is extremely efficient. It's so efficient, in fact, that you will sometimes see better performance from a compressed NTFS volume than an uncompressed volume. This is due to the fact that more data can be read in a given amount of time, and because the OS is very efficient at decompressing it on the fly. Note: Given the size of disks today, compression is pretty much a non-issue and rarely used.

01-22-2007, 06:32 PM	#1
o_dragonjojo Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	External Hard drive Q I picked up a 500 gb Western Digital Mybook external harddrive. I was doing a disk defrag today on my comp's C drive and I saw that my C drive is NTFS and my external is FAT32. I've already put a good 80 gigs on the external and from what i've seen people say to switch it to NTFS. Would you guys say i'm ok leaving it as FAT32 or should I look into transferring the files to my regular comp and changing the external to NTFS?

01-22-2007, 08:39 PM	#7
mervaka A Very Sound Guy! Fortress Forever Staff Join Date: May 2005 Location: UK Posts Rated Helpful 15 Times	also, dont UNIX based systems have a strong dislike for NTFS? __________________ Support FF:

01-23-2007, 07:35 PM	#20
o_someoldguy Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Just east of the jug handle Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	To clear all this up NTFS vs. FAT32, from http://faq.arstechnica.com/link.php?...7b77c8e37cbd2f (my additions in italics) NOTE: There are plenty of articles on the web about NTFS and FAT32... I just picked this one because it's less geeky and still factual. ----------------- The great debate rages on as to which is better...NT File System (NTFS) or File Allocation Table 32-bit (FAT32). If you are reading this, then you probably haven’t yet decided which to use, and my goal in writing this is to help you make that decision. Each file system has its pros and cons, but first let's start with the obvious...which Operating Systems can read which file systems? If an OS you want to run can’t read or write to NTFS or FAT32, then you might as well not read any further (unless you’re curious, like me =) Read/Write Windows XP Yes/Yes Windows NT 4.0 Yes/Yes Windows 2000 Yes/Yes Linux Yes/Experimental a work in progress A brief history of the FAT file system The FAT is simply a "database" of where each file is physically located on the disk, so that the OS can read your data. The reason that FAT went from 12-bit years ago to the 32-bits used today is...the larger the disk gets, the larger the number the FAT has to use to be able to access all the data. All data on a disk is divided up into chunks, called clusters. A cluster on a FAT formatted disk can range in size from 2k to 64k (or larger if your sectors are larger than the normal 512 bytes), depending on the size of the disk. Each of these clusters has an address in the FAT, and the more clusters you have, the larger the address has to become. The maximum size for a FAT16 partition was 4G, because 4G divided up into 64k clusters comes out to 1111111111111111 (65535), which is the largest number possible with a 16 bits. FAT32 removes that limitation by switching to a 32-bit addressing system, meaning that (in theory) you could have a single partition that takes up 4,294,967,295 clusters, or 134,218G. Now for the Pros and Cons: NTFS/FAT32 Security built-in Yes/No Journaled Yes/No Support for multiple data streams Yes/No Built-in file compression Yes/No Support for partitions > 2G Yes/Yes Readable and writable by most major OS's out-of-the-box No/Yes More general info... Speed: NTFS and FAT32 are very similar in speed, but as the size of the disk increases, the gap widens. NTFS actually stores small files in the Master File Table (MFT), to increase performance. Rather than moving the heads to the beginning of the disk to read the MFT entry, and then to the middle or end of the disk to read the actual file, the heads simply move to the beginning of the disk, and read both at the same time. This can account for a considerable increase in speed when reading lots of small files. Journaling: NTFS is a journaled file system, meaning that it keeps a journal of all changes made. If you lose power in the middle of writing some data, when the machine comes back up, it can roll back changes, according to its journal. This doesn't necessarily mean that you won't lose any data at all, but it means that if part of the MFT is corrupted, it can be fixed. If the same thing were to happen to a FAT32 partition, and part of the FAT were corrupted, the partition would be unmountable (unreadable), and you would lose everything on the disk. Note: not perfect but better than not having it. Security: FAT32 offers no security whatsoever, whereas NTFS offers very good security. All files and directories can be secured with a great degree of granularity. You can specify who can read, write, list, and change files, read/write permissions, read/write attributes (read-only, etc.), and a few others. The thing to keep in mind here is...all of this security is easily circumventable with a Linux boot disk. Physical security is the most important security. Data Streams: Another feature of NTFS is something called "data streams." A data stream is a kind of "file within a file." Data can be separated into multiple streams, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is for compatibility with Mac's. Mac's use a "resource fork" to keep track of what application created a file, and therefore what application to open it with, among other things. When you put a Mac file onto an NTFS volume, the actual data from the file is put into a primary data stream, and the resource fork is put into an alternate data stream. This way you don't have to have extra files laying around just to keep track of the resource fork. And it's all transparent. For more info on data streams, you can visit this page. Compression: A commonly-used feature of NTFS is file compression. Many people have the idea that compression is bad, because of the way most compression is done. In Windows 98, for example, if you compressed a drive, it would take everything on that drive, and put it into one big file, using a special driver to make it look like all the files were still separate. This saved a lot of space, because there was no more cluster slack, but it also meant that if any part of the file got corrupted, all your data was gone. NTFS compression is far better. It compresses each file individually, and is extremely efficient. It's so efficient, in fact, that you will sometimes see better performance from a compressed NTFS volume than an uncompressed volume. This is due to the fact that more data can be read in a given amount of time, and because the OS is very efficient at decompressing it on the fly. *Note: Given the size of disks today, compression is pretty much a non-issue and rarely used.* Last edited by o_someoldguy; 01-23-2007 at 07:58 PM.

01-22-2007, 06:35 PM	#2
o_\|404\|innoc-tpf- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Midtown Express Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I prefer NTFS. I think the problem you may have is that you'll need to reformat to change the formatting and means losing what's there now. There may be a work around but I cannot recall atm due to a massive headache.

01-22-2007, 06:39 PM	#3
o_gambit Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	i want to say i reformated mine to NTFS and didnt lose anything... but i would wait for an answer from somebody more experienced....

01-22-2007, 07:57 PM	#4
o_jinx Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ohio Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I think Win98 only works with FAT32, if that's a concern for you. NTFS is newer, and I believe faster and more efficient. If it's just a storage drive, it probably doesn't matter much either way I would think.

01-22-2007, 09:52 PM	#11
o_bubbles Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Converting your harddrive to NTFS won't cost you anything but time. Main thing about NTFS is that it can handle files larger than around 4 GB, it's supposedly more stable and a bit faster aaand there was some backup option.

01-22-2007, 11:42 PM	#12
o_mooga Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: A Small Box Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	NTFS hates *nix. NOT the other way around. It's because M$ hates everyone and LOVES money.

01-22-2007, 11:59 PM	#13
o_deadly furby Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cell Block 17 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Here's how to convert from FAT32 to NTFS. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314097/EN-US/ Read thoroughly before deciding to do it.

01-23-2007, 12:00 AM	#14
o_someoldguy Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Just east of the jug handle Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	For information and downloads about Linux and NTFS http://www.linux-ntfs.org/ Remember.... Google is your friend.

01-23-2007, 02:14 AM	#15
o_jinx Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ohio Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	The 4GB limit for FAT32 could be a real problem if you were dealing with things like DVD iso's. Does anyone have a Flash Drive that is NTFS? Mine is FAT32, and it won't allow me to reformat it to NTFS. Not a big deal on a 1GB drive, but as Flash Drives get bigger we're going to want NTFS on them I would think.

01-23-2007, 04:30 AM	#16
o_mooga Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: A Small Box Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	But I use thumb drives to bring things from one platform to another. NTFS might be better in WINDOWS, but FAT32 is more compatible.

01-23-2007, 07:11 PM	#17
o_dragonjojo Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I really have no plans of storing files over 4 gigs on the drive so I think i'm alright in FAT32. So far i've had no problems. I can change to NTFS and apparently I shouldn't lose the files on there. I'm just wondering if the risk is worth the benefits.

01-23-2007, 07:12 PM	#18
o_\|404\|innoc-tpf- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Midtown Express Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	drum roll please

01-23-2007, 07:30 PM	#19
o_bubbles Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	It's really no big of a deal if you're not handling files over 4GB. FAT32 will do you just fine.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)