NTFS or FAT32?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CYYC
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saab Dastard
Hmmm... Shouldn't the manufacturers be more concerned with securing PCs against attack from the internet?
It's a bit like saying car manfrs don't put locks on their cars against the possibility that someone might lose their keys.
SD
It's a bit like saying car manfrs don't put locks on their cars against the possibility that someone might lose their keys.
SD
Plastic PPRuNer
Funny old world...
On one thread I find myself supporting Microsoft's proprietary NTFS filesystem and on the other I find myself supporting Linux!
Both good OSes IMHO, but with different approaches and philosophies.
And prices of course.....
goates
"With the passwords on NTFS, you can't get them back, at least not by any means the average person could do."
It's quite easy, unless your "average" user is very dim (admittedly, lots are).
Getting into a physically accessible Windows box when you've forgotten either your password or the Administrators password is trivial.
Get a friend to download and burn one of the innumerable Windows password reset disks available on the WWW and Bob's your uncle.
http://home.eunet.no/~pnordahl/ntpasswd/ is one of many.
No friends? Then you might have a problem....
BTW, MS does encourage people to make an "official" Password Reset Disk for just this situation.
PS: Getting in is one thing and reading encrypted files is quite another.
If you've encrypted your files then you're out of luck. Without the correct password modern encryting file systems are effectively unbreakable. But most people who encrypt files are aware of this and stash copies away safely.
On one thread I find myself supporting Microsoft's proprietary NTFS filesystem and on the other I find myself supporting Linux!
Both good OSes IMHO, but with different approaches and philosophies.
And prices of course.....
goates
"With the passwords on NTFS, you can't get them back, at least not by any means the average person could do."
It's quite easy, unless your "average" user is very dim (admittedly, lots are).
Getting into a physically accessible Windows box when you've forgotten either your password or the Administrators password is trivial.
Get a friend to download and burn one of the innumerable Windows password reset disks available on the WWW and Bob's your uncle.
http://home.eunet.no/~pnordahl/ntpasswd/ is one of many.
No friends? Then you might have a problem....
BTW, MS does encourage people to make an "official" Password Reset Disk for just this situation.
PS: Getting in is one thing and reading encrypted files is quite another.
If you've encrypted your files then you're out of luck. Without the correct password modern encryting file systems are effectively unbreakable. But most people who encrypt files are aware of this and stash copies away safely.
Psychophysiological entity
I mentioned this thread to a friend, and he e-mailed me back with this overview. It seems to contain some extra angles on the issue.
I edit to say that when he says
'FAT was always very unreliable;' it is from his view point. I recal him saying 25 years ago, 'a system should not crash....EVER.' not judged by mortal standard then. ;-)
So, the issues of NTFS vs. FAT continue. FAT (File Allocation Table)
was "invented" for the very first floppy drives. In those days it used
only 12 bit cluster addresses and thus could address only 4096 clusters
- more than enough for the tiny floppy disks of the time. When the
first
PC hard drives appeared they extended FAT to 16 bit addressing, and
this
was known as FAT16. This allowed 65536 clusters to be handled. The
maximum sized disk was then 65536 times the cluster size: a 4K cluster
gave a 1/4 Gig max. disk, and a 32K cluster gave the magic 2 Gig. max.
Unfortunately, each cluster can contain only one file, or portion of a
file. You cannot put two files in the same cluster, so a file
containing
only one byte occupies a complete cluster - if its a 32K cluster then
32k-1 bytes were wasted.
With the advent of FAT32, the 2Gig barrier was finally broken and
sensible sized clusters could be used, but that's not the end of the
story...
FAT was always very unreliable; one attempt to combat this was to
maintain a duplicate FAT (the actual FAT is, in essence, the heart of
the system - when it gets corrupted you can lose bits of files). When
the FATs got out of sync it was apparent that something had gone wrong
and you could run CHKDSK to fix it. This is the reason that you were
forced to run it when the system wasn't properly closed down. Despite
the duplicate FAT the whole system was never very reliable and files
were often found to be corrupted.
Enter totally different file systems. The best one of all was the one
that IBM developed for OS/2 - the one called HPFS (High Performance
File
System) - but this lost favour with the demise of OS/2. When MS's
version of OS/2 came out it had a brand new file system - NTFS (New
Technology File System). This was based on the HPFS system but wasn't
quite as good. There have been 5 versions of NTFS - 1 to 3 were used
for NT 1 to NT 3. version 4 was for Windows 2000, and version 5 for XP.
All the NTFSs broke the 2Gig barrier, but the earlier versions were not
particularly good performers. The later versions improved this and were
not very different from FAT32, but they were much more reliable.
In short, NTFS is FAR better than FAT. Its as fast and much more
reliable. There really is no contest. FAT was never designed for large,
permanently mounted hard disks. NTFS was. Period. The big problem is
that W98 and earlier cannot read it at all - NTFS partitions are simply
invisible to systems earlier than W98.
I edit to say that when he says
'FAT was always very unreliable;' it is from his view point. I recal him saying 25 years ago, 'a system should not crash....EVER.' not judged by mortal standard then. ;-)
So, the issues of NTFS vs. FAT continue. FAT (File Allocation Table)
was "invented" for the very first floppy drives. In those days it used
only 12 bit cluster addresses and thus could address only 4096 clusters
- more than enough for the tiny floppy disks of the time. When the
first
PC hard drives appeared they extended FAT to 16 bit addressing, and
this
was known as FAT16. This allowed 65536 clusters to be handled. The
maximum sized disk was then 65536 times the cluster size: a 4K cluster
gave a 1/4 Gig max. disk, and a 32K cluster gave the magic 2 Gig. max.
Unfortunately, each cluster can contain only one file, or portion of a
file. You cannot put two files in the same cluster, so a file
containing
only one byte occupies a complete cluster - if its a 32K cluster then
32k-1 bytes were wasted.
With the advent of FAT32, the 2Gig barrier was finally broken and
sensible sized clusters could be used, but that's not the end of the
story...
FAT was always very unreliable; one attempt to combat this was to
maintain a duplicate FAT (the actual FAT is, in essence, the heart of
the system - when it gets corrupted you can lose bits of files). When
the FATs got out of sync it was apparent that something had gone wrong
and you could run CHKDSK to fix it. This is the reason that you were
forced to run it when the system wasn't properly closed down. Despite
the duplicate FAT the whole system was never very reliable and files
were often found to be corrupted.
Enter totally different file systems. The best one of all was the one
that IBM developed for OS/2 - the one called HPFS (High Performance
File
System) - but this lost favour with the demise of OS/2. When MS's
version of OS/2 came out it had a brand new file system - NTFS (New
Technology File System). This was based on the HPFS system but wasn't
quite as good. There have been 5 versions of NTFS - 1 to 3 were used
for NT 1 to NT 3. version 4 was for Windows 2000, and version 5 for XP.
All the NTFSs broke the 2Gig barrier, but the earlier versions were not
particularly good performers. The later versions improved this and were
not very different from FAT32, but they were much more reliable.
In short, NTFS is FAR better than FAT. Its as fast and much more
reliable. There really is no contest. FAT was never designed for large,
permanently mounted hard disks. NTFS was. Period. The big problem is
that W98 and earlier cannot read it at all - NTFS partitions are simply
invisible to systems earlier than W98.
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
The big problem is
that W98 and earlier cannot read it at all
that W98 and earlier cannot read it at all
With the advent of FAT32, the 2Gig barrier was finally broken and
sensible sized clusters could be used
sensible sized clusters could be used
< = 512MB --512 Bytes
< = 8GB ---- 4 Kilobytes
< = 16GB --- 8 Kilobytes
< = 32GB --- 16 Kilobytes
> = 32GB --- 32 Kilobytes
Compare this to NTFS - block size is a constant 4KB by default (can be increased from 0.5 KB to 64 kB depending on the application).
Note that If you setup Windows on FAT and then convert the volume from FAT to NTFS, it usually causes Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation, so in general, converted partitions are somewhat slower than ones originally created as NTFS. The only solution to this is to backup everything, re-format and restore.
SD
