Article View: demon.ip.support.nt
Article #3615Re: FAT vs NTFS
From: Roger J.Hamlett
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 00:00
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 00:00
26 lines
1665 bytes
1665 bytes
In article: <GJw4YBA6PUHzEwt$@moofware.demon.co.uk> Alan J Dalziel <alan@moofware.demon.co.uk> writes: > > Hi, > > Recently taken delivery of a shiny new dec pentium 166 with NT4, however > the hard disk is formatted as FAT, is there any speed benefits of > reformatting as NTFS?? What do you think? No. NTFS is slower than FAT, though there is a 'crossover point', as the drive gets bigger. However in file-server applications, NTFS can perform better than FAT, with the right hardware. Do not go to NTFS 'looking for speed gains', but move to it if you want a more 'data rugged' file-system, and security handleing. However, on a drive nearing the top of FAT's handling, I have found NTFS to be _very slightly_ faster, but we are talking a tiny percentage. Best Wishes -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- | EMail roger@ttelmah.demon.co.uk http://www.ttelmah.demon.co.uk/ | | A beard! A beard! cried Fly Nicholas.'By God, that's a good one!'| | (Chaucer) |
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<813212567wnr@ttelmah.demon.co.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<GJw4YBA6PUHzEwt$@moofware.demon.co.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 112d46,7b7e038684008a54 X-Google-Attributes: gid112d46,public From: "Roger J.Hamlett" <Roger@ttelmah.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: FAT vs NTFS Date: 1997/03/05 Message-ID: <813212567wnr@ttelmah.demon.co.uk> X-Deja-AN: 223593978 References: <GJw4YBA6PUHzEwt$@moofware.demon.co.uk> X-Mail2News-User: Roger@ttelmah.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: relay-7.mail.demon.net!relay-5.mail.demon.net!ttelmah.demon.co.uk Organization: Myorganisation Reply-To: Roger@ttelmah.demon.co.uk Newsgroups: demon.ip.support.nt