IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Windows vX.X Forum / Faster.
Post #66,319
by pwhysall
Picture of pwhysall
12/3/02 12:42:17 AM
Reply
New Faster.
Yes, faster.

Whether you like it or not, NTFS is faster.

Don't believe me? Try copying a 50GB file between NTFS partitions. Now do it between FAT32 partitions.

Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
Post #66,322
by deSitter
Picture of deSitter
12/3/02 12:53:02 AM
Reply
New Re: Faster.
50GB? One file? What kind of benchmark is that?

I can see the little folders flying...

NTFS is slower in the real world, with lots of fixed-place programs and small files, like browser cache and secretary letters.

-drl
Post #66,326
by pwhysall
Picture of pwhysall
12/3/02 12:58:57 AM
Reply
New Whatever.
The real world is people doing digital video of their kids.

The real world is 80G of MP3, Ogg and WMA files.

The real world is where NTFS outperforms FAT32 every fucking time.

Just because you WANT it to be slower doesn't make it so.

FAT32 is dead. Get over it.

Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
Post #66,411
by deSitter
Picture of deSitter
12/3/02 11:31:22 AM
Reply
New Re: Whatever.
Do you think I was born yesterday? I've been dealing with NTFS since you were in school! Simple common sense tells you that NTFS is GUARANTEED slower because of the security and journaling overhead *in most real world situations*, assuming the same level of fragmentation and similar disk layout (cluster size etc). Unless the disk is badly fragmented, FAT32 results in less head motion (you can see this with your own eyes). NTFS has an advantage in speed of directory listings because of the MFT - thus if many, many tiny files are stored in a complex directory structure, with at least some of those directories having hundreds and hundreds of entries, there can be a significant performance increase. But who has a disk setup like that? For an applications-oriented disk, this *single* speed advantage of NTFS is moot. The only case I can think of where this might be significant is say a browser cache that is enormous on a machine with a high-speed network link.

For very large files, the actual file system is almost irrelevant and the main issues are cluster size and fragmentation.
-drl
     Which is better for WS, WinXP Pro or Win2000 WS? - (tonytib) - (44) - Dec. 1, 2002, 05:26:56 PM EST
         Re: Which is better for WS, WinXP Pro or Win2000 WS? - (pwhysall) - Dec. 1, 2002, 05:33:34 PM EST
         I just HATE to say it... - (folkert) - (41) - Dec. 1, 2002, 11:54:52 PM EST
             Better Mem Mgt is big - (tonytib) - (1) - Dec. 2, 2002, 12:50:44 AM EST
                 W2K Vastly Improved - (deSitter) - Dec. 2, 2002, 10:55:30 AM EST
             Nutz! - (deSitter) - (38) - Dec. 2, 2002, 10:54:01 AM EST
                 You ferget... - (folkert) - (37) - Dec. 2, 2002, 08:55:15 PM EST
                     FAT32? - (pwhysall) - (36) - Dec. 2, 2002, 11:42:14 PM EST
                         Re: FAT32? - (deSitter) - (34) - Dec. 2, 2002, 11:59:02 PM EST
                             Can't be resized? - (pwhysall) - (9) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:00:37 AM EST
                                 Re: Can't be resized? - no - (deSitter) - (3) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:09:31 AM EST
                                     Sure it can. - (pwhysall) - (2) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:10:37 AM EST
                                         PQ has NDA with Borg - (deSitter) - (1) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:29:34 AM EST
                                             Re: PQ has NDA with Borg - (pwhysall) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:39:30 AM EST
                                 Not faster either - (deSitter) - (4) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:27:55 AM EST
                                     Faster. - (pwhysall) - (3) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:42:17 AM EST
                                         Re: Faster. - (deSitter) - (2) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:53:02 AM EST
                                             Whatever. - (pwhysall) - (1) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:58:57 AM EST
                                                 Re: Whatever. - (deSitter) - Dec. 3, 2002, 11:31:22 AM EST
                             Re: FAT32? - (Steve Lowe) - (23) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:24:06 AM EST
                                 PQ has NDA with Borg -NT - (deSitter) - (22) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:30:56 AM EST
                                     No really relevant.. - (bepatient) - (21) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:40:34 AM EST
                                         Re: No really relevant.. - (deSitter) - (20) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:48:54 AM EST
                                             So? - (pwhysall) - (2) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:53:25 AM EST
                                                 Resierfs access from NT/XP - (kmself) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2002, 06:32:31 PM EST
                                                     Betchya can guess what I'm gonna say... - (folkert) - Dec. 4, 2002, 08:21:55 PM EST
                                             No...you didn't. - (bepatient) - (16) - Dec. 3, 2002, 01:12:32 AM EST
                                                 Ab-so-fraggin-lutely! - (n3jja) - (15) - Dec. 3, 2002, 07:58:34 AM EST
                                                     There are some things... - (bepatient) - (14) - Dec. 3, 2002, 09:57:33 AM EST
                                                         Re: There are some things... - (deSitter) - (8) - Dec. 3, 2002, 10:16:13 AM EST
                                                             Simple - (bepatient) - (7) - Dec. 3, 2002, 11:02:56 AM EST
                                                                 Whatever - (deSitter) - (6) - Dec. 3, 2002, 11:08:40 AM EST
                                                                     Relax man... - (bepatient) - (5) - Dec. 3, 2002, 11:17:34 AM EST
                                                                         Soooo..... - (admin) - (3) - Dec. 3, 2002, 11:23:27 AM EST
                                                                             *chuckle* -NT - (n3jja) - (2) - Dec. 3, 2002, 11:26:19 AM EST
                                                                                 what are you laughing at ??? :-) navarone n3jja -NT - (bepatient) - (1) - Dec. 3, 2002, 12:56:07 PM EST
                                                                                     *mauser bepatient* - (n3jja) - Dec. 3, 2002, 01:02:38 PM EST
                                                                         Now just a minute.... - (n3jja) - Dec. 3, 2002, 11:25:37 AM EST
                                                         *whackamole bepatient* - (n3jja) - (4) - Dec. 3, 2002, 10:50:43 AM EST
                                                             free AV - (andread) - (3) - Dec. 3, 2002, 03:21:08 PM EST
                                                                 Cool.... - (bepatient) - (2) - Dec. 3, 2002, 05:42:01 PM EST
                                                                     Re: Cool.... - (andread) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2002, 10:10:37 AM EST
                                                                         A little heavier than NAV... - (bepatient) - Dec. 4, 2002, 11:55:24 AM EST
                         I like my blubber-32.... - (folkert) - Dec. 3, 2002, 09:03:46 AM EST
         2k. - (inthane-chan) - Dec. 2, 2002, 01:32:02 PM EST

Powered by a special Firewire direct connect!
107 ms