NTFS vs. FAT

[aimeeandbeatles]

I was talking to this guy who's a professional hacker and a data recovery person, and he says while NTFS is more secure (or something like that), FAT is more compatible.

I also know that with some version of FAT, you can't have huge files. I read this in the FAQ for a video editor (either VirtualDub or Avidemux or maybe something else.)

Which do you prefer?

 

[Padma]

Ntfs is generally the better file system. But nearly everything can read files on a FAT system. (Linux can now write to, as well as read from, ntfs, so that's not as big a deal, anymore.) Most small, removable devices are formatted FAT: floppies, thumb drives, etc.

FAT is more prone to fragmentation, I believe. It also has limits on file size (for FAT32, the maximum file size is 2G.) The block size in a FAT system can also be quite wasteful, especially if you have many small files, since the minimum physical space required by a file is one full block. Everything from the end of the file to the end of the block is just wasted. With today's large drives, a single block can be very large.

I only use FAT in the obvious places, e.g., my flash drive. For everything else, I use ext3.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I've never heard of ext3, but I googled it and it seems it's a filesystem for Linux. Correct?

 

[Padma]

True.

 

[Till]

FAT is a really basic filesystem. It has no journaling capabilities, which makes it very vulnerable to crashes (remember the long scandisc sessions that would start after every crash of Win95? Those were necessary because the *entire* filesystem had to be checked for errors. A journaling filesystem only needs to check its journal)

What your hacker friend meant with "more secure", is that NTFS provides mechanisms to restrict access to files. FAT has no such thing, which makes it a really bad idea in a multi user environment...

 

[Genocidicbunny]

FAT is useful on flash drives up to 4GB in size. After that, you run into the FAT32 file size limit ( Its 4GB-1byte, not 2GB Padma ). The only places where I have FAT32 is my flash drives and my ipod(s) ( I dont have any video's big enough to be over 4GB )

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I don't think videos get above 4 gigs unless they're straight from the DVD or super-high-definition.

Unless you count my 15 gigabyte VirtualDub mistake

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Lossless video easily gets over 4GB ( If such a thing exists, its just not compressed from the DVD or Blu-ray)

 

[Cutlass]

NTFS is default for Win XP. It has security features that Fat32 does not have. You don't use Fat in anything like a modern computer, because it does not make efficient use of large hard drives. NTFS also makes more efficient use of the HDD than Fat32 does. So there's really no benefit to Fat32 any longer.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Lossless video easily gets over 4GB ( If such a thing exists, its just not compressed from the DVD or Blu-ray)

Yeah, but I prefer to compress it to an AVI -- it's a bit lossy, but not so much as some other formats. Of course, it depends on the codec.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

NTFS is default for Win XP. It has security features that Fat32 does not have. You don't use Fat in anything like a modern computer, because it does not make efficient use of large hard drives. NTFS also makes more efficient use of the HDD than Fat32 does. So there's really no benefit to Fat32 any longer.

According to the booklet for my portable HDD, it says it's formatted as FAT so it can be used on both Windows and Macs. (No mention of Linux.) So it could probably be used when you're switching between different OSes.

 

[ainwood]

Interesting point is that when Civ4 first came out, saves with "protect assets" flags created using a PC with NTFS would not load in FAT, and vice-versa. This was due to the asset checksums being calculated by polling the asset directories, and reading the files sequentially.

I believe the problem is that the windows API actually reads NTFS in chronological order, and FAT32 in alphabetical order.

/mildly interesting tangential point.


I use NTFS as its less prone to corruption.

 

[ainwood]

According to the booklet for my portable HDD, it says it's formatted as FAT so it can be used on both Windows and Macs. (No mention of Linux.) So it could probably be used when you're switching between different OSes.

I would expect that you can reformat it yourself in NTFS, if so desired.

In fact, windows XP has a means of changing the file system to NTFS without even losing data (can't go the other way, though).

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb456984.aspx

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Yeah, but I can't be bothered to reformat it. LOL.

Anyways, if I ever decide to switch OSes, at least I'm not screwed.

 

[Padma]

( Its 4GB-1byte, not 2GB Padma ).

Oops. I blame overwork.....

 

[Aramazd]

NTFS. The one advantage FAT has (compatibility) is less important, as you can read and write NTFS on linux and maybe Mac as well.

 

[GVBN]

Yeah, but I prefer to compress it to an AVI

AVI is a container, not a video compression method

Lossless video easily gets over 4GB ( If such a thing exists, its just not compressed from the DVD or Blu-ray)

I think most video capture programs split the file when it reaches 4gb

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

AVI is a container, not a video compression method

That's why I said "It depends on the codec." I use whatever codec is most convinient at the time.

 

[GoodGame]

NFTS seems to be what Microsoft recommends.
FAT seems to be for multi-OSes on a computer, or as an emergency tools partition.

The NTFS file system is generally not compatible with other operating systems installed on the same computer, nor is it available when you've booted a computer from a floppy disk. For this reason, many system administrators, myself included, used to recommend that users format at least a small partition at the beginning of their main hard disk as FAT. This partition provided a place to store emergency recovery tools or special drivers needed for reinstallation, and was a mechanism for digging yourself out of the hole you'd just dug into. But with the enhanced recovery abilities built into Windows XP (more on that in a future column), I don't think it's necessary or desirable to create that initial FAT partition.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/russel_october01.mspx

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

NFTS seems to be what Microsoft recommends

Yes, but would you really trust anything Microsoft says?

Nah, I'm not anti-Microsoft, they do at least a few things right.