Page 1 of 1

fat32 vs ntfs

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 9:49 pm
by COKEDUDE
Ntfs - the only filesystem allowing read/write access and files greater than 2GB under Windows and Linux. Good for USB storage.

Read more: http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Int ... z0pT2WwELY
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Interoperability

Is this no longer accurate about fat32? I just used a 4 gb flash drive to share several video files between Windows XP and Linux Mint.

I also plan on sharing several files in the future with that 4 gb flash drive between XP and Mint so I was wondering if I should use fat32 or ntfs. Fat32 seems faster than ntfs, so I think I would prefer fat32. Please explain why with whichever way you say.

Re: fat32 vs ntfs

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 11:06 pm
by markcynt
FAT32 can handle file sizes up to 4GB. Anything bigger than that will fail.

You shouldn't have any problems with that flash drive.

Re: fat32 vs ntfs

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 11:10 pm
by vincent
You also have to take into account the fact that fat32 fragments much more easily than NFTS...but for the purpose of a USB drive, I'd go with fat32. It's pretty much the only filesystem that's almost guaranteed to always work no matter where you plug it in, since Windows, Mac, and Linux all recognize it without a problem (and probably most other UNIX/UNIX-like OS'es as well).

Re: fat32 vs ntfs

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 11:39 pm
by Biker
There's also much more wasted space with FAT32 in that files are written to 32K blocks rather than the 4K blocks in NTFS.

I personally would go with NTFS. Less wasted space and I've noticed absolutely no speed difference between the two file system types on my system. And since NTFS-3g is pretty much universal at this point (including OS X), the old fears of compatibility between OSs is a thing of the past unless you're using an ANCIENT distribution.

Re: fat32 vs ntfs

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:23 am
by COKEDUDE
markcynt wrote:FAT32 can handle file sizes up to 4GB. Anything bigger than that will fail.

You shouldn't have any problems with that flash drive.
Do you have any documentation on this? I would like to learn more about this and why you can't use a bigger flash drive than 4 gb.
vincent wrote:You also have to take into account the fact that fat32 fragments much more easily than NFTS...but for the purpose of a USB drive, I'd go with fat32. It's pretty much the only filesystem that's almost guaranteed to always work no matter where you plug it in, since Windows, Mac, and Linux all recognize it without a problem (and probably most other UNIX/UNIX-like OS'es as well).
I thought only windows fragments. I thought thats why windows has a defrag program and Mint doesn't.
Biker wrote:There's also much more wasted space with FAT32 in that files are written to 32K blocks rather than the 4K blocks in NTFS.

I personally would go with NTFS. Less wasted space and I've noticed absolutely no speed difference between the two file system types on my system. And since NTFS-3g is pretty much universal at this point (including OS X), the old fears of compatibility between OSs is a thing of the past unless you're using an ANCIENT distribution.
Sounds like you have a better flash drive and computer than me. I notice a huge difference in speed.

Re: fat32 vs ntfs

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:56 am
by markcynt
COKEDUDE wrote:
markcynt wrote:FAT32 can handle file sizes up to 4GB. Anything bigger than that will fail.

You shouldn't have any problems with that flash drive.
Do you have any documentation on this? I would like to learn more about this and why you can't use a bigger flash drive than 4 gb.
No more documentation than you have (Google). I have experience.

You can use any size flash drive you want. I use an 8 GB

I think you're confusing file size with drive size.

The 4 GB limitation is for single files larger than 4 Gb, like a 4.4 GB ISO file.

Re: fat32 vs ntfs

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:27 am
by Brian49
I've found in the past that NTFS doesn't play nice with Nautilus. I don't know if that's still the case, but you might wish to test it out before deciding.

Re: fat32 vs ntfs

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:04 am
by markcynt
COKEDUDE wrote:
Ntfs - the only filesystem allowing read/write access and files greater than 2GB under Windows and Linux. Good for USB storage.

Read more: http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Int ... z0pT2WwELY
One more thing.

The quote you provided is wrong.

I believe the 2 GB file limitation applies to FAT 16.

Re: fat32 vs ntfs

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:49 am
by DrHu
Every file system is fragmented to some extent, how much that is an issue, depends on the level of fragmentation that can occur.
--the only time any file system can be considered non-fragmented is when it is initially formatted: that is newly made.

Fat32..
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/154997


Just read the documentation available and make your own comparisons, vis-a-vis your application/system requirements..

Re: fat32 vs ntfs

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:27 pm
by COKEDUDE
markcynt wrote:
COKEDUDE wrote:
markcynt wrote:FAT32 can handle file sizes up to 4GB. Anything bigger than that will fail.

You shouldn't have any problems with that flash drive.
Do you have any documentation on this? I would like to learn more about this and why you can't use a bigger flash drive than 4 gb.
No more documentation than you have (Google). I have experience.

You can use any size flash drive you want. I use an 8 GB

I think you're confusing file size with drive size.

The 4 GB limitation is for single files larger than 4 Gb, like a 4.4 GB ISO file.
Yes your right. I was typing faster than I was thinking. Thx for explaining.
markcynt wrote:
COKEDUDE wrote:
Ntfs - the only filesystem allowing read/write access and files greater than 2GB under Windows and Linux. Good for USB storage.

Read more: http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Int ... z0pT2WwELY
One more thing.

The quote you provided is wrong.

I believe the 2 GB file limitation applies to FAT 16.
Yea that made no sense to me. I used a 4 gb flash drive with fat32 and had no problems.
DrHu wrote:Every file system is fragmented to some extent, how much that is an issue, depends on the level of fragmentation that can occur.
--the only time any file system can be considered non-fragmented is when it is initially formatted: that is newly made.

Fat32..
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/154997


Just read the documentation available and make your own comparisons, vis-a-vis your application/system requirements..
Ok will do.

Re: fat32 vs ntfs

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:05 pm
by Pilosopong Tasyo
Sounds like you have a better flash drive and computer than me. I notice a huge difference in speed.
The transfer speed you get also depends on several factors, not just what file system you use:
(a) Your flash drive speed rating.
(b) The size of the individual files you are transferring back and forth.
(c) The actual USB interface on the computer -- is it version 1.x or 2.x?