Advertisement

There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
Login
Search

Advertisement

Hardware Hardware
Search Search
Search for:
Tech Support Guy > > >

Best File System (NTFS or FAT32) for USB External Hard Drive


(!)

nuzzawuzza's Avatar
nuzzawuzza nuzzawuzza is offline
Junior Member with 1 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
16-Oct-2002, 12:12 PM #1
Best File System (NTFS or FAT32) for USB External Hard Drive
I just bought a Maxtor 5000LE that has 80GB storage capacity and uses USB 1.1/.20 to connect to the PC. It comes formatted with FAT32. I will be storing large .avi files on this (around 700MB each) and wanted to know what would be the best file systems as far as disk storage and performance. I imagine with USB 1.1 or even 2.0 the performance will be poor anyhow. But in terms of making the most out of the 80GB I have to work with is NTFS or FAT32 better? I don't care about file system security and I am not sure if compression would be helpful in this case. Thanks in advance for any feedback you can provide.
cavp's Avatar
cavp cavp is offline
Member with 233 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Outer Space
16-Oct-2002, 12:43 PM #2
First of all: NO COMPRESSION; it'll make things slower (more CPU time). Now, if you say it will store big video files, my best bet is for FAT32; here's why: For a 80 GB hd, the default cluster size is 32 KB, it means bigger blocks that store data, at the same time faster to read and a bit more difficult to fragment. After copying aall your files, defrag the hd, to gain some speed in file accesing.
tjsudo's Avatar
tjsudo tjsudo is offline
Senior Member with 524 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
16-Oct-2002, 12:58 PM #3
Hi,

80GB on NTFS is 8 Sectors/Cluster and cluster size of 4kb.(you can change this.)

On FAT32. It's 64 sectors/Cluster. A cluster is 32kb.(you can't change this.)

It's obvious that NTFS wastes less space compare to FAT32 although they both use same 32bit mapping.

Use NTFS. It offers more than security.

TJ


I didn't mean to oppose you, cavp. I took time to calculate and when i posted, your post is there.
monted's Avatar
monted monted is offline
Senior Member with 860 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Junction City,KY
Experience: Intermediate
16-Oct-2002, 01:22 PM #4
the only reason i haven't went NTFS is that i've heard its hard to go back to FAT32 if you want to dual boot the hard drive later
cavp's Avatar
cavp cavp is offline
Member with 233 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Outer Space
16-Oct-2002, 01:34 PM #5
4 KB cluster=less space wasted; BUT ALSO: more fragments in big files=more seek time=lower speed. Remember that nuzzawuzza wants to store BIG video files, so some MB lost (the worst case) per all his files, doesn't make too much sense. Also, nuzzawuzza, I suppose u r using W2k, aren't you?
As Seen On

BBC, Reader's Digest, PC Magazine, Today Show, Money Magazine
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.


(clock)
THIS THREAD HAS EXPIRED.
Are you having the same problem? We have volunteers ready to answer your question, but first you'll have to join for free. Need help getting started? Check out our Welcome Guide.

Search Tech Support Guy

Find the solution to your
computer problem!




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


WELCOME
You Are Using: Server ID
Trusted Website Back to the Top ↑