IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
ntfs or fat32 for media library
nightfishing
post Jan 31 2008, 01:06
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 292
Joined: 4-February 06
Member No.: 27549



Running XP, not concerned about compatability with other OSs.

Added a new External (firewire) HD to store/play my media library.

Any recommendation on fat32 or ntfs?

thanks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SallyDog
post Jan 31 2008, 01:10
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 24-April 03
From: Florida
Member No.: 6147



QUOTE (nightfishing @ Jan 30 2008, 16:06) *
Running XP, not concerned about compatability with other OSs.

Added a new External (firewire) HD to store/play my media library.

Any recommendation on fat32 or ntfs?

thanks.

ntfs
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Jan 31 2008, 01:50
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 2080
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



If you plan on storing files that are larger than 4GB then go with NTFS. FAT32 is compatible with more OS's such as Windows 98, XP, Vista, the Xbox 360, and the PS3. NTFS is basically only compatible with Windows 2000, XP, and Vista.

For pure music purposes FAT32 wouldn't be bad but you should use NTFS if you plan on storing videos.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
m_l
post Jan 31 2008, 02:38
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 14-December 07
From: space
Member No.: 49531



I use FAT32, for compatibility, but since that's not an issue with you go with NTFS.

This post has been edited by m_l: Jan 31 2008, 08:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emon
post Jan 31 2008, 02:39
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 20-July 05
Member No.: 23424



NTFS works well under Linux with NTFS-3G, just for the record. It supports full read and write, but I'm not sure if journaling is there yet.

Anyways, if compatibility isn't an issue, always go with NTFS. There is no reason for FAT32 other than compatibility.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xmixahlx
post Jan 31 2008, 03:44
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 1394
Joined: 20-December 01
From: seattle
Member No.: 693



ext2ifs = http://www.fs-driver.org


later


--------------------
RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LANjackal
post Jan 31 2008, 07:39
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 731
Joined: 26-October 05
From: Various networks
Member No.: 25371



QUOTE (nightfishing @ Jan 30 2008, 18:06) *
Running XP, not concerned about compatability with other OSs.
NTFS all the way, no question.


--------------------
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
j7n
post Jan 31 2008, 08:54
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 813
Joined: 26-April 04
Member No.: 13720



Maybe you will be concerned about compatibility with another computer in the future, since it's an external disk? I could say the only need for NTFS is when you're gonna have files larger than 4 GB. I don't see it happening in music storage, even when having Audio DVD.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emon
post Jan 31 2008, 10:55
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 20-July 05
Member No.: 23424



Yeah, the only need other than vastly increased speed, stability, and security, sure.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gow
post Jan 31 2008, 17:43
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 233
Joined: 14-June 06
From: Fort Wayne, IN
Member No.: 31824



NTFS, even Linux supports it now through a program, so compatibility issues are no longer a problem now or in the future. After all, Microsoft will soon implement WinFS, so NTFS is not going to change.


--------------------
Zune 80, Tak -p4 audio library, Lossless=Choice
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hybridfan
post Jan 31 2008, 18:00
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 160
Joined: 11-July 03
From: UK
Member No.: 7707



NTFS for sure wink.gif


--------------------
:Foobar 2000:
:MPC --standard:
:iRiver H320 Rockboxed:
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SamHain86
post Jan 31 2008, 18:52
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 432
Joined: 1-January 07
From: Luebeck, DE
Member No.: 39196



QUOTE (xmixahlx @ Jan 31 2008, 03:44) *

I have read somewhere about the insecurity of the FAT32 file system to errors, from power failure and the like. In contrast then, heard the superiority of NTFS. I haven't enough technical knowledge to look for credible sources that can specify to me.

EXT2, how resilient is that against unexpected errors. Any advice?


--------------------
OP can't edit initial post when a solution is determined :'-(
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ardax
post Jan 31 2008, 19:05
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 233
Joined: 3-December 01
Member No.: 578



QUOTE (nightfishing @ Jan 30 2008, 20:06) *
Running XP, not concerned about compatability with other OSs.

NTFS. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

If you need direct compatability with other major OSes, FUSE+NTFS-3g is a very good solution, including MacOS. Even still, you may just be able to share the files from your current system.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zastai
post Jan 31 2008, 19:20
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 27-May 03
Member No.: 6847



It depends on how many machines you will be connecting the drive to. I've had some very bad experiences with the use of NTFS on external drives - Windows seems to be quite happy to corrupt the file system if the USB ports/cables/controller aren't all of the very highest quality. In particular, transferring files directly between external disks is likely to hose the target drive's filesystem.
FAT32 is out if you need huge partitions or large files; for most other uses it's not bad (if you're paranoid about data security you can always create a set of PARs for each folder). And if you have a PS3, it's the ideal choice for transferring media from your PC.
Other options may exist, like that ext2 driver - but you'd have to bring along the driver if you wanted to connect the disk to a standard Windows PC, so it's probably not as convenient.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gow
post Jan 31 2008, 19:44
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 233
Joined: 14-June 06
From: Fort Wayne, IN
Member No.: 31824



QUOTE (SamHain86 @ Jan 31 2008, 12:52) *
In contrast then, heard the superiority of NTFS. I haven't enough technical knowledge to look for credible sources that can specify to me.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS
http://www.ntfs.com/
http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserve...3.mspx?mfr=true


--------------------
Zune 80, Tak -p4 audio library, Lossless=Choice
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bourne
post Jan 31 2008, 19:50
Post #16





Group: Banned
Posts: 735
Joined: 19-March 06
Member No.: 28599



THEY SAY that huge cluster sizes will make reading-writting fast. Up to 32GB, a FAT32 filesystem can produce automatically 32k clustersize, against default-4k in NTFS filesystems.

I personally did not EVER notice any improvements of 64k/FAT32 clusters on NTFS/4k. There is an option to make NTFS with larger clusters but I don't think that would bring any improvement as well.

I'd say you should stick with NTFS because it support larger drives (FAT32 can support partitions up to 32GB only). That's the pretty much default for these days.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
j7n
post Jan 31 2008, 21:18
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 813
Joined: 26-April 04
Member No.: 13720



QUOTE (Bourne @ Jan 31 2008, 20:50) *
I'd say you should stick with NTFS because it support larger drives (FAT32 can support partitions up to 32GB only). That's the pretty much default for these days.

Don't speak nonsense. Even on retail Win98 without updates you can have 127 GB partitions. Properly patched Win98 can work with 1 TB, WinNT5 can also mount 1 or 2 TB partitions.

The 32 Gig limit was put in WinNT5 disk formatting routine to make FAT32 look worse than it is.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JunkieXL
post Jan 31 2008, 21:32
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 3-April 05
Member No.: 21165



Yeah, where are you getting that info from Bourne?

I think the general census (which means everyone) would recommend NTFS.
JXL
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Beaver
post Jan 31 2008, 21:41
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 26-January 08
From: Minneapolis, MN
Member No.: 50820



Doesn't FAT32 have a 4GB file size limit? Granted, if all you are storing is music, that is not a big deal.


--------------------
Dissent!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TREX6662k6
post Jan 31 2008, 22:56
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 311
Joined: 20-August 06
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 34237



QUOTE (j7n @ Jan 31 2008, 20:18) *
The 32 Gig limit was put in WinNT5 disk formatting routine to make FAT32 look worse than it is.


Bingo. Inorder to format some drives, I had to use the commandline.

Recommend NTFS. Support for over 4GB files is a necessity.
I would have thought if a file system was to get corrupted it would be FAT32 with the higher chance since NTFS is journal-ed.


--------------------
http://www.last.fm/user/TREX6662k5/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tgoose
post Jan 31 2008, 23:12
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 407
Joined: 12-April 05
Member No.: 21399



I had big issues with a Maxtor external drive and NTFS. It was a known issue and there were workarounds, but I still lost some data. Now I just use ext3 for storage so I don't need to worry about anything. I have a drive with HFS+, NTFS and FAT partitions for transferring stuff to other OSes but I don't need it very often.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bourne
post Jan 31 2008, 23:32
Post #22





Group: Banned
Posts: 735
Joined: 19-March 06
Member No.: 28599



I ain't talking non-sense... I am saying what users will face when trying to format 100GB drive with FAT32. There is a workaround but I'm not sure how you will end up with the clusters or if that would compromise the whole performance. I'm sure there are "limitations" and "workarounds" and people will eventually avoid workarounds.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463/EN-US
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odious_m
post Feb 1 2008, 08:28
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 4-June 06
Member No.: 31428



QUOTE (Bourne @ Jan 31 2008, 17:32) *


Thanks for the link. MS states, "The maximum (FAT32) disk size is approximately 8 terabytes . . . "

QUOTE (Bourne @ Jan 31 2008, 13:50) *
(FAT32 can support partitions up to 32GB only).


Maybe you should read it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SamHain86
post Feb 1 2008, 10:55
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 432
Joined: 1-January 07
From: Luebeck, DE
Member No.: 39196



QUOTE (Gow @ Jan 31 2008, 19:44) *
Thansk for the links, however, as I read really really slow, the only highlights I got out of it is that journaling seems to be really really good, NTFS supports while EXT2 doesn't support it. EXT3, the successor does. However, can that EXT2 work around work with EXT3 partitions?


--------------------
OP can't edit initial post when a solution is determined :'-(
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
washu
post Feb 1 2008, 14:32
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 16-February 03
From: Ottawa
Member No.: 5032



QUOTE (SamHain86 @ Feb 1 2008, 01:55) *
Thansk for the links, however, as I read really really slow, the only highlights I got out of it is that journaling seems to be really really good, NTFS supports while EXT2 doesn't support it. EXT3, the successor does. However, can that EXT2 work around work with EXT3 partitions?


Anything that can mount EXT2 can mount EXT3. The only difference is that the journaling feature will not be used.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd November 2014 - 22:43