FAT32 vs. NTFS

[SonarAardvark]

Would my Sonar workstation running WinXP run better using FAT32? Or should I convert it to an NTFS drive?

[Dark Phader]

NTFS is a much better file system but I don't recommend doing a convert as you would end up with very small clusters and poor performance.
If you want to move to NTFS you'll have to reformat - meaning a re-install for the boot partition.

[SonarAardvark]

Reformatting isn't much of an option.

I have too many plugins and apps that I don't want to have to re-install. Plus I don't want to have to burn all of my work onto CDs

[DAW-Freak]

The performance difference between Fat32 and NTFS is minimal, I have all my partitions formatted as Fat32 including my XP-boot partition and I'm happy with this setup http://www.audioforums.com/forums/smile.gif

[DS_Sultan]

Plus, if I am not mistaken you do not need to reformat to convert to NTFS. At least in NT and Win2K there is a convertion utility you run that will, upon next boot, convert the partition.

To verify this, go to a DOS prompt and type CONVERT followed by the ENTER key. It will show you the command if available, and if so enter CONVERT /? and it will show you the options you have.

I too have read posts and articles about the performance under both partition types. And I have no preference either way for performance. The concession made by going to NTFS is that you lose the ability to have the partition read by booting to a DOS disk, or by booting to a 98 level OS if need be. For this reason I keep mine in FAT32. Compatability is a key for me in recovery if nothing else. Keep this in mind when choosing.

Good luck.

[Dark Phader]

If reformatting isn't much of an option than stick with FAT32.
It should be apparent that I didn't mean literally that you would have to reformat to move to NTFS. I meant that you wouldn't really want to do it any other way as the "Convert" process leads to a drive with a cluster size of 512 bytes; very small and lots of overhead which corresponds to poor performance.
FAT file systems develop problems rather easily and are quick to offer your data as a sacrifice to the gods when power drops or the wind blows the wrong way.


[This message has been edited by Dark Phader (edited 05-01-2002).]

[bubba freaktree]

here's the real deal on it.

they both will work fine. the only difference is that fat32 doesn't like bigger than 30gig partitions. it's performance nose dives when you try to go bigger.

so keep your fat32 partitions at 30 gig or less, and you're fine.

[dys]

If you're looking for reliability, it's all about NTFS. NTFS has journalling. FAT32 doesn't.

dys-

[+Erik.+]

if you are converting between fat32 and ntfs then partition magic is the utility to get. you can increase the cluster size of NTFS.

however, after much debate on this topic on this very forum i set my drives up as such:

OS/Apps partition - NTFS, 4k clusters
Audio Projects - FAT32 32k clusters.

hence

c: drive NTFS, 4k
G: drive FAT32, 32k

for all my other drives i use NTFS as it's all to do with file storing, not streaming.

The convert utitily in XP works but i don't trust it. I converted once and ended up with some corrupt files. The best thing to do is move the data off the drive and convert it then move it back. Windows will sort it from there.

I haven't noticed any degradation using NTFS 32k clusters for my audio project drive, but i took it back to FAT32 32K clusters as it is techincally better.

[Robert D]

Ditto. I'm using NTFS for OS and Apps, FAT32 for Audio. Why? I wanted that FAT sound. http://www.audioforums.com/forums/biggrin.gif
RD

[TimZ]

Ditto, Ditto, I too am using NTFS for operating system and general stuff and FAT32 for audio. One thing that has not been mentioned is that the NTFS drives defrag WAY FASTER than if they are FAT32.

Robert, I'm pissed, my audio drive isn't sounding any fatter as a result.

TZ