NTFS or FAT32

[korz]

Well, my scratch-built PC DAW is up and running. I haven't loaded Logic Audio yet, so I can't try out recording, but otherwise, everything looks good... except...

In this fine forum, I was told to format the Audio HD (80G Maxtor ATA133 8MB for Boot, OS, and Apps, 120G Maxtor ATA133 8MB for Audio) with a FAT32 file system. Well, when I got to formatting, I was not given the opportunity to select FAT32. The file system type was in a pulldown menu (this is XP Home, btw), but the only option was NTFS.

I know there are third-party utilities to format drives for FAT32. Is it worth it? I just read about reliability issues with Maxtor drives in another topic here, so I'm a bit scared. On the one hand, NTFS is a bit more robust, right? On the other hand, NTFS, by its very nature, causes the drive to work harder, right?

Needless to say, I'm going to be backing up all my work onto CD-R (and I've got a USB 2.0 external 80G which I will probably use for backups also, for extra protection) often.

I must say, that this box is quiet... two Maxtor drives with fluid bearings and a Raidmax power supply with quiet fans. The hum of my answering machine is twice as loud as this PC!

So, am I better off with a third-party formatting program for FAT32 (or is there a way to do it from XP?) or sticking with NTFS?

Thanks.

Al.

[pipesndrums]

XP only supports 32GB FAT32 partitions. In order to format as a FAT32, assuming this is not your system drive and you've already installed XP, use Control Panel->Admin Tools->Computer Management and set up the drive into multiple partitions of 32Gb or less. You will then get the option.

For your system drive and XP install, simply make a smaller primary system partition of 32Gb or less.

I just did this and ran dskbench against both my system drive and my audio drive using FAT32 and NTFS - yep wiped and reinstalled 3-4 times! Since I'm using Sonar, I can choose my block settings. I'll be using 128K on the audio drive (64K on the system drive was best). I get about 110 tracks @ 44.1/16 (which will give me maybe 30 tracks @ 96/24). I'm using Toshiba 40GB and 60GB ATA-5 notebook drives (16MB cache, 5400rpm) for my Sager 8886 (P42.8/1GBRAM, XP, Sonar 2.2XL, MOTU896).

I decided on NTFS since the performance difference wasn't noticable with my testing and I didn't want lots of 32GB partitions everywhere: system and audio - simple.

Good luck...

piperone

[TimZ]

Originally posted by pipesndrums:
XP only supports 32GB FAT32 partitions.

Huh? That news to me. I have two 80 gig drives and one 40 gig drive all set at FAT32, and they are all fully recognized by XP as FAT32 for their full size.

TZ

[bubba freaktree]

my understanding of fat32 vs ntfs is this:
ntfs gives you additional password security and i also believe more networking features (for servers and stuff). Fat 32 allows you to work on XP as well as windows 9.x. Fat32 can also be read by mac's.

I've heard that Fat 32 is good up to about 40 gigs, and then the performance really drops off. I have an external 120gig drive for backup. I'm probably going to format it Fat32 so it's compatible with all different systems.
I'm planning on 4 30gig partitions.

So if you want one giant-mongo drive and don't anticipate ever using this drive on an OS earlier than WIndows NT, then NTFS is probably a good idea.

This is the first time I've heard of an NTFS formatted drive having to "work harder" than a Fat32. Maybe it's true, not sure.

Originally posted by TimZ:
Huh? That news to me. I have two 80 gig drives and one 40 gig drive all set at FAT32, and they are all fully recognized by XP as FAT32 for their full size.

TZ

[Robert D]

I believe that it's only low level formatting that Xp can't do on Fat32 partitions above 32 Gig. Do a search on this subject in this forum and you'll find extensive discussion. I think it doesn't make much of a performance differance one way or the other. Some guys, including myself, have gone with NTFS for OS and general programs, and Fat 32 for audio, mostly for compatibility reasons.
RD
RD

[Bops2000]

I just did a fat 32 on the new %$#@## daw
a p 4 machine.
I used to do ntfs on all programs - on 1st drive "c"
then partitioned all the other sectors on 'c' as well as second drive on fat 32.
I was using Cakewalk Home studio as well as reason, and acid (all legal by the way).

It seems to me that the ntfs concept for a 'boot' drive works pretty good. In fact I am gonna redo the machine this weekend to see what happens. (just built it and my wife won't give me the mixer till my birtday- the biotch)
Again this is Win2000 - Xp is another book I need not to read at this time.

[TimZ]

Originally posted by bubba freaktree:
I've heard that Fat 32 is good up to about 40 gigs, and then the performance really drops off.

Again, news to me. My system does not seem to have any performance drop off with 80gigs at FAT32. Are you suggestion that my performance would increase if I partition those drives at 40gig or less? I doubt it.

TZ

[Bops2000]

BY the way
I could use a little help whenever you geeky guys can figure.
I am running a %$#$$#$ maudio 2496 with cakewalk / or sonar. But lets deal with twelve tone Home studio - an upgrade from pro9.

ok I have wdm drivers for the $#$#@@ maudio card.

I am running home studio test at 26 stereo track samples (13 imported acid waves). I am testing here and I hope I am making sense.
I added blue tooth samples for gig-gles (notice the pun)
Well it seems if I move mouse around , I get conflicts and this is new to me. I will eat crow here. I have via chipset also but I think its a video card problem. gforce 64 meg ram, I am runnin sd133 ram on mobo I Know I need 1 gig of ram but thats not the issue, is it a cache thing ?
I am tired

[pipesndrums]

Originally posted by TimZ:
Huh? That news to me. I have two 80 gig drives and one 40 gig drive all set at FAT32, and they are all fully recognized by XP as FAT32 for their full size.

TZ

Understood. Please see: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314463

This is Microsoft's take. As with all things, searching on the interet will turn up much more information than this on FAT32 vs NTFS. In addition I've read the existing FAT32 partitions on upgrade from XP will work just fine. Don't know if that's your situation. Note the non-support is in the format command.

It's very simple for me. What's the official take, do old notions of NTFS still hold up? Do I care about the past? Most important: on my system, what is the performance difference? Result: none. Solution: go with the simple setup since I want to record and not twidle with my new laptop. In addition, if reinstall is needed, the steps are just as simple.

Everyone has their preference.

regards,

pipesndrums

[This message has been edited by pipesndrums (edited 02-07-2003).]

[TimZ]

Okay, unless I am missing something here, that article says you cannot FORMAT partions larger the 32 gigs using the XP format function during the install. Whereas you said "XP only supports 32GB FAT32 partitions". Those are two different things. I formatted my drives using Partition Magic before I did a clean XP install. My two O/S partions (I have a dual boot set-up) are NTFS and my larger audio drives are FAT32, and they are both much larger than 32 gigs.

Not trying to argue here, but more just trying to understand what the deal is, since my system is working fine as is.

TZ

[pipesndrums]

I stand corrected in my earlier statement which was too broad.

It's not just on installation though. I have not been able to format any partition - install or post-install. I am not using any additional software like Partition Magic.

Also see: http://www.microsoft.co m/windowsxp/home/using/productdoc/en/default.asp?url=/WINDOWSXP/home/using/productdoc/en/choosing_between_NTFS_FAT_and_FAT32.asp (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/using/productdoc/en/default.asp?url=/WINDOWSXP/home/using/productdoc/en/choosing_between_NTFS_FAT_and_FAT32.asp)

piperone



[This message has been edited by pipesndrums (edited 02-07-2003).]

[soundman]

I've got a 40gig hard drive partitioned out into four drives all fat32, which have my OS and audio programs. I then have a 20 gig drive partitioned out into three drives using fat32. I use it for my virtual memory and extra storage. I then have a hard drive bay, which I use with lots of different size drives all fat32. I use this as my audio drive. I've formated many different sizes of hard drives multiple times using xp pro. From 2 to 100 gigs and I haven't had any problems yet. I stayed with fat32 so I can be compatible with my home system. I've heard there was a small performance benefit, by using NTFS, but I heard it wasn't much. I could of heard wrong though......

[Bops2000]

I have heard nuttin on benifit of ntfs for audio.
If you run internet then ntfs is a 'should do'

[korz]

Thanks for all the info, although some of it was a bit conflicting. I don't know how *much* harder the drive has to work to support NTFS, but I'm pretty sure it's a non-zero additional load because NTFS *logs* every disk write, which is certain to add a bit of overhead. From one one responder posted, it seems that the additional load is miniscule. I would prefer to use NTFS because I'm told it's more robust a file system. If I understand correctly, it's modeled after the Unix file system and I've never ever lost data on a Unix file system.

One poster said they use 128k block size for their audio disk. I formatted for 32k, even though I was offered 64 and 128k block sizes. I understand the tradeoffs: big blocks mean lots of wasted space if your files are smaller than the block size; small blocks mean more seeks and thus slower disk response. Do I have this right? I would gladly reformat for 128k blocks if it means better speed and more tracks. I don't forsee recording 100 tracks at a time, but I figure if I optimise for speed on every front, I'll get the most out of the machine.

Should I reformat for 128k blocks? This disk will only be used for audio files and thus all the files on it will be huge.

Thanks.

Al.

[AndyCoburn]

Just recently downloaded the program at this zdnet site:
http://downloads-zdnet.com.com/3000-2086-10132058.html

For those who bought their PCs ready made, there is some useful information but not a great deal. However, if you've built a PC from scratch this program is a must. It has thorough "burn in" function as well as complete reporting of internal temperatures. Give the free version a try and let us know how you like it.

[Bops2000]

Muchos gracias andy coburn!

[Arranger]

Tascam's Win2k/XP Document
FAT32 vs. NTFS
You have the option under W2k and XP to choose the file system that best suits your needs, FAT or NTFS. FAT (File Allocation Table) is
the native file system based on the Windows 9x kernel (including 95, 95a, 95b, 95c, 98, 98se and ME). NTFS (New Technology File System) is the native file system for operating systems based on the Windows NT kernel (including NT4, 2000 and XP). During the installation, Win2K or XP will ask if you want to convert the installation partition to NTFS. If you need compatibility for Windows 98 - especially if you want to dual-boot - don't convert.

While NTFS offers a number of improvements over FAT32, most of these advantages are not all that applicable to audio, and you are unlikely to see a major performance difference between the two. Moreover, defragmenting your drives (something you should do on a regular basis anyway) is substantially quicker in FAT32. Be aware that Windows 9x cannot read data on NTFS-formatted drives. Generally speaking, you should use FAT32 if you are doing a parallel installation with Windows 9x/ME, or if you will need to work with files created with a FAT32 system (opening old song files, working with others using FAT32-based systems, etc.) leave everything with FAT32.

One exception would be if you'll be working with video or other large files in excess of 4GB; or if you also use your PC to browse the internet or the computer is part of a LAN running XP Professional. Only NTFS can limit access rights to your files and therefore provide the security needed for a networked computer. In this case, select NTFS for all partitions except those which are to accommodate your audio data later.

One other interesting point: NTFS can read the "resource fork" of SDII files from MacOS, and can therefore recognize the timecode stamps used in these files; FAT(32) can't do this. If you do a lot of work with ProTools or other MacOS-based DAW applications, you should consider at least one NTFS partition in your system. (Note that this does not imply that your NTFS-based system can mount/read from a MacOS drive; simply that individual SDII files imported to an NTFS drive will retain their time-stamp information.)

End Tascam excerpt

[TimZ]

Just a couple of points that may not be correct is "defragmenting your drives (something you should do on a regular basis anyway) is substantially quicker in FAT32". When I was talking to the tech support for the Diskeeper defrag program he told me that Defragging is up to 5x faster if your drive is formatted to NTFS. Maybe that just applies to their program. I have three partitions at NTFS and three at FAT32. My NTFS partitions seems to defrag much faster now than they ever did with FAT32. So, while I cannot offer any technical support for this, there does appear to be some inconsistency with the info in this area.

Also, it is generally accepted that defragging your audio drive with your multi-track sessions is not a good thing. There has been tons of discussion on this issue, and the real experts all say defragging your audio drive(s) is not a good thing. Do a search at the MusicPlayer Expert forums, over at RAP or at the Samplitude Newsgroup (and probably many other forums too) to read all about it.

Cheers

TZ