NTFS or FAT32

petal · Post by **petal** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:23 pm

I just bought myself a new Seagate 120 GB HDD today. It's a bit different to install one of these babies than I'm used to. The computer doesn't recognize it and you have to use a program called "DiskWizard".

Now since this new HDD is 120 GB I wanted to make it with two partitions, and this is where the trouble starts. I wasn't allowed to make FAT32-partitions larger than about 36 GB. Is there somekind of maximum amount of how many GB a FAT32-system can handle? Or is it just that damn "DiskWizard" that is being "userfriendly"?

The reason that I'm not just installing the NTFS is that I have heard somewhere, that it is best to stick with FAT32 - is this true? Or would you recommend me to just go ahead and install NTFS on both partitions?

Help please
Thomas

[ This Message was edited by: petal on 2003-10-13 17:33 ]

Billy goat gruff · Post by **Billy goat gruff** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 6:16 pm

Go NTFS on both partitions in myb opinion.

Thalamus · Post by **Thalamus** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 6:27 pm

While fat32 gives you very little perfomance increase, NTFS will give you much greater security, fail tolerance and quicker defragmentation.

I'll say go for NTFS for the sake of your data...

petal · Post by **petal** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 6:33 pm

Cool!

Thanks for the quick answers!
NTFS it is then - Lucky for me by the way. I don't need to change anything, since the Diskwizard insisted on installing the NTFS.

Thanks
Thanks

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:22 pm

Here's another tip: only do one partition. NTFS can handle it easily, and it'll make your life SO much easier!!

Shayne

petal · Post by **petal** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 5:21 am

Well, I'm making two partions in order to gain a little performance increase. Partion 1 (C:) is supposed to contain Windows and all my programs, and partion 2 (D:) is for all my data. If this is done right you'll have partion 1 at the outer edge of the discs, which will make your system a bit more snappy.
And secondly, I ususally do a complete reinstall of my computer about twice a year, all though I have to admit that this isn't so important/neccesary with Windows XP as it used to be with Windows 95/98/ME/2000. With two partiones this job is made a bit more easy, and I'm able to remove everything from partition C: and reinstall a completely nonfragmented system.
This is my reasons behind the two partitions, but Shayne could you please explain to me why 1 partition will make my life so much easier?
And also correct me if I'm wrong about my main reasons for having two partitions.

Cheers!
Thomas

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:35 am

NTFS is your friend.

If you have only 1x partition, then you're in danger of losing all your data if the boot sector gets scrapped (this is often the 1st area of a HDD which goes BANG).

Royston

p.s. I'd personally recommend 2x physical drives, keeping one for the OS, programs (2x partitions) and the other just for data (i.e. your audio). Have Windows use the other physical drive for its swap file too.

petal · Post by **petal** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:46 am

OK - thank you. I'm convinced that NTFS is the way to go.

About having two harddisks, thats the next project (after upgrading CPU/MOBO/RAM sometime next year).

Still there's the issue about having 2 partitions on the same disk: is it good or is a bad? Am I understanding you right (Counterparts) that you think it's a good thing with two partitions on my only HDD because my data is more safe in case of HDD-failure?

Thomas

[ This Message was edited by: petal on 2003-10-14 07:46 ]

samplaire · Post by **samplaire** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 8:45 am

Instead of NTFS I would go

path

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 9:38 am

petal wrote:

Am I understanding you right (Counterparts) that you think it's a good thing with two partitions on my only HDD because my data is more safe in case of HDD-failure?

If you have your data in the second partition (let's say d:), then if your boot-drive partition (typically c:) blows up, you'll only lose the information for that partition.

Of course, it goes without saying that you'll have all your data backed-up anyway

If you don't, then regardless of one partition or a million sooner or later you'll lose the lot.

Royston

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:18 pm

according to a magazine's (Keyboards) 'tips and tricks' section having 2 partitions will even slow down your system bcause of... (I hardly dare to write for I don't consider even the most dumb software company in the world that stupid) EVERY disk acces on partition 2 causes an additional lookup in the partition map...

Defragmentation isn't a problem at all with typical audio setups according to that source. Modern file systems use tree hierachy opposed to chained blocks of their predecessors.

And finally: the drive is subject to fail completely anyway, so Royston's tip is more than a good advice.
Get a second cheapo one - my rate of dead victims of progress is constantly increasing.

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2003-10-14 20:19 ]

petal · Post by **petal** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:49 pm

Hmm, so what you are saying is that I should go back and only use one partition on my HDD and preferable get a second HDD.
One partition shouldn't be a big problem, I still have my old HDD/system-setup in the house, but it has allready been sold, so it will be leaving my system sometime tomorrow. The second HDD will have to wait a little longer....

Well, thanks to all who have been posting here to help me!

Thomas

Micha · Post by **Micha** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 7:17 am

another tip:
Ever had a wild session with some 200+ files and tried to delete that? hours!

so: one more partition for wild experiments: in case of a usable result, save to your work folder else format.

petal · Post by **petal** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 8:01 am

Hi Micha!
Thanks for the tip

All though I really appreciate all the advice and good tips I'm getting from you all, I don't see any consensus in the replies I get here..... except use NTFS and get a second harddisk. But I only have one HDD and I can't afford a second one for at least half a year - What I want is to build a fast system, and one that stays that way. I thought that two partitions were gonna achieve that, but since Astroman, who usually gives out thorough advice, says that one partition is faster than two, then I'm in doubts again....

Perhaps a more thorough search on the net is required....

But please keep those tips coming!
Thomas

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 12:01 pm

well Petal, I actually only transmitted what I've read from a PC wiz at keyboards - and I agree with him that the hierarchy of NTFS isn't a big danger for fragmentation in the classical sense anymore, as the blocks are already spread all over the disk.
It is somewhat similiar to how Oracle database files are structured internally and THAT's fast as hell

But the thing with the additional lookup is really strange. The article read as if the partition map is physically accessed, with an extra head movement if the system requests data from another but the first partition. Since you cannot modify that map on the fly (without reboot), I absolutely don't see any sense at all in this procedure.
It could be buffered at some mem location and cost a couple of extra cycles, but a head movement is in the millisecond range.
Not even M$ can be that stupid, can they ?

cheers, Tom

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 6:33 pm

There is still a good reason to partition a single drive and that is what Counterparts has already outlined. One C: partition for the OS and apps and a D: partition for your work (project files and track data etc)

If at any time the OS starts getting all screwy and the only fix is to reformat and re-install the OS, you won't lose the work you have on the d: partition. You just format c:, install the OS and apps, and then you can load up your projects again from d: and continue on.

For an example of partition sizes, a small partition for OS and apps (say 10GB (small!!??), mine is about 4GB and I still have a heap of space left) and a large partition for D: (the rest). With the size of your drive though I would probably add another partition (e: maybe say 40GB) that would appear on the slowest part of the drive (the innermost portion) and I would use this to store system drivers (vga, motherboard, soundcard, anything that makes it easier and quicker in the event you need to rebuild the system e.g. I keep the various versions of pulsar software and devices and a copy of the allkeys file here), mp3's, backup copies of tracks/projects while you work on a song, masters, miscellaneous stuff etc etc.

[ This Message was edited by: bassdude on 2003-10-15 19:40 ]

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 11:33 pm

I have studied it much, read everything in the net, asked many questions about it, and finally tryed both to see.

Defintely, and there is nothing to think about NTFS is the way. There are far too many advantages. Those advantages are too many and very complex to me to explain in plain english, so that's it, just my two cents.

NTFS is better than any FAT.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 11:35 pm

Oh... of course, use FAT only if you plan to use win98.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:13 am

BTW: There is just one advice from profesionals and experts: they say you should keep your partitions at no less than 8.50 GBs for them to be effective onto NTFS.

Another tip: the program you mention, DiskWizard, ist's fantastic. I've done lots of work with it and it works very well. It even does a special formating for NTFS for Win XP. It is very secure and you can't go wrong with it.

Conclusion: Go NTFS, use DiskWizard to do the partitions specialy made for NTFS Win XP, and don't go smaller than 8.5 per partition.

Another good tip is: get this beauty to defrag your discks, it's the very best you can get, and it's a revolution, read on...

http://www.raxco.com/products/commerce/ ... s_all.cfm/

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:20 am

Somre reviews about Raxco PerfecDisck:

http://www.raxcosoftware.com/showprodin ... infotype=5

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2003 ... sk0613.htm