Is NTFS slower than FAT32?

[pIED pIPER]

Hey, I just recently reformatted my system and reinstalled WinXP. This time I choose FAT32 on the primary partition. When everything was done I immediately ran Sandra Disk Benchmark and got 16000 drive index score. Previously on NTFS I would only attain half that amount. I must conclude that NTFS is slower than FAT32. I'm my missing something?

HD = Maxtor ATA UDMA 66 / Mode 4

-pIED pIPER

[Chad]

It varies quite a bit. NTFS in general is faster. Its a more efficient file system. On your previous attempt at NTFS, did you convert from FAT32? IF you convert from FAT32 to NTFS, it will set the cluster size automatically to 512bytes. Nothing you can do about it. NTFS runs best at 16K, 32K, or sometimes 64K. I set my NTFS partitions to 16K. FAT32 can use 16K and higher, but you are wasting a ton of space. There is a tradeoff with FAT32....wasted disk space, or speed. Can't really have both. With NTFS, you can have both.

Basically, the smaller the cluster size, the more parts each file gets separated into....the more parts that have to be used, the longer it takes. The bigger the cluster size, the less parts a file is split up into...therefore it takes less time.

In order to fully use NTFS, you need to format first, and set NTFS when you are installing the OS. IT will ask you what cluster size to use. For non OS partitions....format to NTFS and select which cluster size.

Thats a long winded answer for an easy question

[Firebird]

i agree

fat32 is noticeably faster for me too...

[Ren (Killshot)]

technicaly NTFS is faster on large drives, however for a home system its not needed ( but recomended )

[Brian C.]

FAT 32 is much faster. I have had my drive NTFS and did benchmarks, cached and uncached speed, and FAT 32 was twice as fast. NTFS is primarily for drives over 40 GB anyway so why bother with it if it produces such a performance hit? As long as you do regular back-ups of your data (which you should do anyway) I really see no reason to be using NTFS unless you are storing crucial business information or something and you don't plan on doing back-ups. If your computer is your toy and gaming machine: stick with FAT 32.

[Ren (Killshot)]

NTFS is primarily for drives over 40 GB anyway

Who told you that?, any thing over a few hundread megs is faster on NTFS than FAT32

Rember its not NETWORK TECHNOLOGY FILE SYSTEM, its NEW TECHNOLOGY

rember fat 16 ?? only 8bytes FAT 32 = 32 bytes, NTFS goes into the millions, its such a efficant filesystem

[neowin_hipster]

I have noticed that NTFS has NO SPEED DIFFERENCE. I like it cuz it doesn't frag hardly at all and that its more secure and stable.

[PM5K]

For anyone that notices a speed decrease of half when using NTFS, it's not the fault on NTFS, it's something else.

For the longest time I have used FAT32, just for the hell of it I decided to start using NTFS a few months ago, I haven't really noticed any diffrence either way.

Also in another post about drive speed I formatted a drive many times with NTFS and FAT32, using diffrent cluster sizes, and put about 8gb worth of files on the drive, the performance between them was hardly noticeable, and not important enough to choose between the two.

Personally I use NTFS for a pretty simple and stupid reason, it's newer so I assume it should be better, also it's what's used on servers.

If you like you can find out comparisons between NTFS and FAT32, I've read them before, though I don't remember it all, it's obvious it's a better file system.

[Heinrich-X]

FAT32 = File Allocation Table; 32-bit

NTFS = New Technology File System

FAT32 is legacy file system, NTFS is faster, more stable and more secure

A little history, Windows NT and NTFS are based off of OS/2 3.0 and its technologies, hence why NT started at 3.1 and why OS/2 2.0 derivitives died, so at the core or your Windows XP is IBM code

[uniacid]

I like NTFS better too, more secure and much more stable :D

[Krome]

Definitely NTFS

[jwndw]

I have played with so many Highpoint Raid drivers and BIOS files it isn't funny. The 2.31's are definitely the fastest at NTFS, but still 8000 points lower in SiSoft Sandra's file system benchmark than the exact same drives on FAT 32 and boot time is 19 seconds longer on NTFS, verified repeatedly with BOOTVIS. System will boot according to Bootvis on Fat32 in 22.19 seconds, on NTFS its 41.4. I did not get a prompt at any time when I installed and formatted with NTFS that allowed me to select a cluster size when formatting the drive, and it always selected 4K clusters automatically. IS there some special key combination you have to press when you are prompted on the format screen to be able to select the cluster size? I have Win XP Pro Full Retail version, not an upgrade, and I don't see it. It just asks to format the drive NTFS or leave it as it is, and If I select NTFS, it simply starts formatting....no prompt to select cluster size. What am I doing wrong? I can format and install very easily and would prefer NTFS, but can't deal with the performance hit.

Jim

[Steven]

What Other Major Operating Systems Rely on FAT....hmmm.... NONE....

Linux, uses, ext2(3) depending on your version, hell thats a journal file system wonder why thats so stable......

Windows NT....uses NTFS for its Journalling file system, hmmm hell thats a journal too, anyone see a pattern?

Journal File System's Rock.... MFT, Security, Compression.... Whats the point of having FAT32 Unless your dual booting win9x and NT...

USE Journal Take The SMMMMMMMMALLL if any performance loss, for some STABILITY..

[hurting101]

Microsoft is currently trying to figure out why the hell some people with NTFS have drives going WAY too slow. For me, currently, its at:

0.46 MB/sec

for uncached. That's 9% of what it should be. So, currently FAT32 is probably the way to go unless MS fixes this thing real soon...

https://www.neowin.net/bboard/showthread.ph...15&pagenumber=3

[GregHard]

In theory, NTFS is extremely marginally slower in general. But because its more secure and effecient, it doesnt frag much, it can improve speed if used properly.

[Shekers]

This tells everything --> http://www.firefox34.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm

[Stingray]

Another link:

http://www.storageadmin.com/Articles/Index...?ArticleID=2744

[Chad]

jwnw....this is a quote from that second link that was posted

"When you format an NT volume, NT chooses a cluster size to fit the volume size. With NTFS, you can select the cluster size for the volume when you use the FORMAT command from the NT command prompt (this solution is not possible from Disk Administrator). To set the cluster size, use the /A switch with the FORMAT command as follows: FORMAT /FS:

Despite the flexibility this feature provides, you generally won't need to specify manual NTFS cluster sizes. NT can automatically configure them for you. NT works best with volumes at the settings it specifies, and changing these settings can adversely affect your system's performance. "

OK...NTFS is not "extremely marginally slower in general". There is nothing slower about it. It is by far more efficient.

The only reason people think ntfs is slower, is because the convert from fat32. When you convert, windows sets the cluster size in ntfs at 512bytes. That is the slowest cluster size you can have. You have to format a drive in order to get a more efficient cluster size. A comparison....a 4K cluster size in NTFS is about the same as a 16K cluster size in fat32 for speed. But when you use 16K under FAT32, you are wasting a lot of disk space.

NTFS doesn't have much downside to it

[jwndw]

The performance hit only happens when using an array on my HPT 370A Raid Controller. The new 2.31 drivers and BIOS were the first I used to get higher than 30,000 on Sandra and boot in less than 50 seconds. I DO NOT have the problem on my daughters machine which is using a single 30GB drive on the onboard IDE channel. It scores very close to the same as it did on Fat 32 and there is no noticeable difference in boot time.

The problem I have is that it IS slower on my Raid Array and it is VERY noticeable. You did answer one of my questions, as I guess the /A works the same as /Z when using Fat 32. I did use 4K clusters when I formatted and did a clean install, as that was what XP did on its own. I have only done a conversion one time....the other six times I have tried have all been clean installs and formatting NTFS from the start. After tweaking and driver after driver and BIOS updates out the yang, I managed a best bench of 30,200 on Sandra and a 41 second boot time. Not bad I guess, but on Fat 32 its 37,800 and just over 22 second boot time. File system responds faster and programs run faster. My daughters computer experiences none of these problems and runs on NTFS just fine, but its only a single drive not a raid array. The problem is NOT NTFS, and I know this. Its the way the Highpoint controller addresses it. I have heard on some Abit forums that the 2.31 seem to have really improved the performance, and I may try NTFS one more time cause God knows I have re installing down to an art form. ;-)

I am curious about one other thing though. I read a Microsoft article about NTFS and it showed the switch /A:8 being used to align clutsters on 4K boundaries resulting in a 4K cluster size, not to set the clutster size at 8K. Is this correct? Would using /A:16 align the clusters on 8K boundaries resulting in an 8K cluster size? I think that may be the number I need to set, because I can't remember exactly how low my controller will go in setting a cluster size, but I think it starts at 8K.

Jim

Jim