FAT32 vs NTFS performance on small HDD

[pangoomis]

Let's say I want to multiboot Win98SE and XP, will using FAT32 on XP have better performance than using NTFS on a <20GB partition?

[submix8c]

Google this.

"cluster size" site:msfn.org

This has been discussed many times before.

[pangoomis]

This topic says the difference in cluster size is negligible.

I'm talking about the overhead connected with the stuff NTFS have like security, compression, etc.

[jaclaz]

This topic says the difference in cluster size is negligible.

I'm talking about the overhead connected with the stuff NTFS have like security, compression, etc.

There is no real overhead (actually there is, but it is nullified by the slowness of the FAT32 filesystem driver - or if you prefer by the efficiency of the NTFS drivers) and a whole lot of other factors (actual disk make/model, i.e. onboard cache size, actual bus type, actual disk driver used, filesystem offset, and a number of other settings in the OS) may affect the performance of either the FAT32 or NTFS filesystem, as hopefully explained here:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156829-hdd-performance-allocation-unit-size/?p=999050

(and given links)

Usually NONE of these can be appreciated in real world usage (whilst they may be measurable through benchmarks or other specific testing tools).

 

jaclaz

[Jody Thornton]

Let's say I want to multiboot Win98SE and XP, will using FAT32 on XP have better performance than using NTFS on a <20GB partition?

My experience was with an 80 GB partition (or less), FAT32 gave slightly better performance.  I would DEFINITELY go NTFS once you exceed 120 GB, but also, NTFS is a more robust file system.

 

Still FAT32 was faster on my XP installations, no doubt about it.

[jaclaz]

My experience was with an 80 GB partition (or less), FAT32 gave slightly better performance.  I would DEFINITELY go NTFS once you exceed 120 GB, but also, NTFS is a more robust file system.

 

Still FAT32 was faster on my XP installations, no doubt about it.

 

Good , though I have a friend of a second cousin that told to me how in his experience NTFS was faster.

 

The point I was trying to make was that there are a large number of settings and conditions that may make the one (or the other) filesystem a little faster than the other, there are no real "absolute" winners on small sized volumes, there is a 32 GB FAT32 size limit imposed by MS on XP that may (or may not) have its reasons but talking about 20 Gb or less that one does not apply.

 

Only as an example, disabling Last Access writes on NTFS:

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc959914.aspx 

will speed up a number of operations sensibly.

As well, properly aligning the data may give benefits to both NTFS (as under XP the data is by default unaligned to cluster size) and FAT32 (which normally has data never aligned to cluster size, though it may happen by pure chance that the default partitioning/formatting create the filesystem "aligned") but this speed increase (or lack thereof) depends also on the actual hard disk and controller and driver used.

 

jaclaz

[pangoomis]

So I guess I'll have to try this myself. Thanks for the posts, good learn.

[submix8c]

I guess my point was "depending on the number of large vs small files" on the (same) HDD (space waste), or is that wrong, jaclaz?

[jaclaz]

I guess my point was "depending on the number of large vs small files" on the (same) HDD (space waste), or is that wrong, jaclaz?

 

Yes and no , (with reference to "speed", not to other aspects such as "slack" or "wasted space").

In theory having a largish cluster size tends to be more efficient with large files and less efficient with small ones, while at the same time a smallish cluster size tends to be more efficient with small files and less efficient with large ones, but there are so many other factors, including the way the filesystem is designed and the actual way data is transferred on the bus and how exactly it is cached (if it is cached) on the hard disk ram or through a strategy in the OS on the motherboard ram that it is extremely difficult to say how much it affects general speed.

Still as anecdotal evidence (i.e. without extensive comparison on vast amounts of hardware) we know that correctly aligning the filesystem (see the given post and provided links):

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156829-hdd-performance-allocation-unit-size/?p=999050

provides a distinct advantage (on a slow bus such as USB 2.0) and that there are noticeable differences (still on a USB bus):

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/125116-fat16-vs-fat32-vs-ntfs-speed-on-usb-stick/

on different (but very similar, 2K vs. XP) OS's.

These same differences are hardly noticeable (if noticeable at all) on faster internal devices/buses which should mean that *something else* in practice compensates them, but (see here and links within it):

http://reboot.pro/topic/9897-vistawin7-versus-xp-partitioning-issue/?p=85960

if you are going to "fine tune" alignment, then you will find that there are differences also (besides the ones between non-aligned and aligned) between different alignment values.

To this you add that very, very small files (up to around 750 bytes or so) are normally stored inside the $MFT record (please read are as fast as possible) in a "normal" NTFS filesystem on a 512 byes/sector device (where each $MFT record is 1024 bytes) and probably if you use a 4 kb sectored device (where $MFT recorded will be also 4 Kb) files up to 3500 or so bytes will also be resident.

And then the actual on-board cache of the device might make any of the above argument m00t.

In a nutshell, at least on smallish volumes, IMHO the choice between FAT32 and NTFS may be either purely "philosophical" OR provide a noticeable difference, but you will never know until you try both on a same device in the specific use it is intended for and attempt to "fine tune" the one or the other as finely as possible.

jaclaz

[vinifera]

fast or not FAT32 can't have file bigger than 4 GB

so if you're into HD movies, or games, you're shit out of luck with FAT32

[jaclaz]

fast or not FAT32 can't have file bigger than 4 GB

so if you're into HD movies, or games, you're s*** out of luck with FAT32

Well on a <20 Gb partition (which is what the OP asked about) there won't anyway fit that many of them 4 Gb files, once subtracted the space needed for NTFS structures, and possibly the XP OS system files+a few programs, at the most 3 or 4 HD movies.

 

jaclaz

[samratatkolkata]

 

fast or not FAT32 can't have file bigger than 4 GB

so if you're into HD movies, or games, you're s*** out of luck with FAT32

Well on a <20 Gb partition (which is what the OP asked about) there won't anyway fit that many of them 4 Gb files, once subtracted the space needed for NTFS structures, and possibly the XP OS system files+a few programs, at the most 3 or 4 HD movies.

 

jaclaz

 

 

 

fast or not FAT32 can't have file bigger than 4 GB

so if you're into HD movies, or games, you're s*** out of luck with FAT32

Well on a <20 Gb partition (which is what the OP asked about) there won't anyway fit that many of them 4 Gb files, once subtracted the space needed for NTFS structures, and possibly the XP OS system files+a few programs, at the most 3 or 4 HD movies.

 

jaclaz

 

 

 

fast or not FAT32 can't have file bigger than 4 GB

so if you're into HD movies, or games, you're s*** out of luck with FAT32

Well on a <20 Gb partition (which is what the OP asked about) there won't anyway fit that many of them 4 Gb files, once subtracted the space needed for NTFS structures, and possibly the XP OS system files+a few programs, at the most 3 or 4 HD movies.

 

jaclaz

 

Hi,

I may be wrong but I believe there are ways around the 4GB / file and also the max limit on partition size on FAT32. Can anyone confirm this if it is not too much of a hassle..

[samratatkolkata]

Hi,

I may be wrong but I believe there are ways around the 4GB / file and also the max limit on partition size on FAT32. Can anyone confirm this if it is not too much of a hassle..

 

Samratatkolkata

[jaclaz]

Hi,

I may be wrong but I believe there are ways around the 4GB / file and also the max limit on partition size on FAT32. Can anyone confirm this if it is not too much of a hassle..

Well, I can confirm that you are wrong, no hassle at all .

 

 

Seriously , FAT 32 has several limitations, of which some are "actual" limitations, whilst some other were introduced by Microsoft.

 

The 4 Gb size of the single file is an actual limit and is NOT avoidable.

One of the fields (file size) in the FAT32 structure (directory entry) is 32 bit in size and as such cannot hold any value above 2^32 -1=4,294,967,295 bytes.

 

The size limit for the volume is due to the maximum number of clusters which is 2^28-1=268,435,445, which corresponds to a minimum of (for 512 bytes clusters) 137,438,952,960 bytes up to (for 32 Kb clusters)  8,796,092,989,440.

There is the possibility (discouraged) to use 64 Kb clusters, in which case max volume size doubles to 17,592,185,978,880.

Please note how on BIOS/MBR there is however a roughly 2.2 Tb size limit ("artificial" but effective) for the whole addressable disk space, and anyway disks 8 Tb or larger are not common yet so these volume size limits (which are NOT avoidable) are non-problems as they are never encountered in real life.

 

The added limit is the 32 Gb size of the volume which is entirely "artificial" i.e. imposed by Microsoft by preventing to create/format such largish volumes with FAT32 in all recent OS's, this limit can obviously be worked around by using a third party tool.

The idea is that since a 32 Kb cluster is needed for a larger than 32 Gb volume, the filesystem will have an excessive slack, which is true for a "generic" (let alone "system") use, but may not be accurate for a volume used to store only (say) videos.

 

jaclaz

[pointertovoid]

In my experience, Ntfs and Fat32 are equally fast for all uses, except when searching for a file through many subfolders, where Ntfs shows a significant advantage.

 

Go Ntfs because:

- It protects the files. Combine that with a poweruser session (or normal user if bearable), so that you can't destroy system files so easily when surfing and catching a malware.

- It is less likely to lose data.