NTFS vs. FAT 32 storage space question

[chaoliang]

I use 4 HDDs of 120/160GB for storing files. Each file has the size of over 120MB. Can I get most of the storage place from NTFS or FAT32?

[az]

At that filesize, it should barely matter. I'd stick with FAT32 if you don't have problems with it, because it's way easier to access if something goes wrong, and you can directly mount the drives in Linux AFAIK.

AZ

[Wombat]

Wow. I'd go for NTFS. Much faster to do a disk scan if you should lose power or something. Linux can read the NTFS system, even if writing to it is risky.

[UtwigMU]

You can always stick NTFS drive in another XP machine and access it. As mentioned Linux can read NTFS. Windows98 can't read NTFS by default but there are hardly any 98 boxes arround and they won't support 160GB drives anyway. Also WindowsNT4.0 can't read FAT32 but can read NTFS.

[Jammrock]

Linux can read NTFS, and there are several recovery tools for NTFS. I always use NTFS as I have more control over my file system and more options to work with.

However, I would NOT convert your disks to Dynamic Disk. It's useful for certain things, but for the average joe it's too much of a headache to recover a dynamic disk.

[az]

Well, the only time I've had total and complete unrecoverable data loss (not due to hardware failure) was on NTFS, so maybe I'm a bit prejudiced.

AZ

[Gurm]

Well, the only time I've had total and complete unrecoverable data loss (not due to hardware failure) was on NTFS, so maybe I'm a bit prejudiced.

AZ

It wasn't "unrecoverable", you just (like many of us at one time or another) didn't have the knowledge and/or tools necessary to do the recovery.

Once upon a time there WERE more/better tools for FAT/FAT32, and certainly we all, at one time or another, felt "more comfortable" with it. But NTFS is actually MORE secure and MORE recoverable.

[Wombat]

Also WindowsNT4.0 can't read FAT32 but can read NTFS.

It can't read newer versions of NTFS, can it?

[Adis]

It can't read newer versions of NTFS, can it?

It can if you have SP6 installed.

I'd go for NTFS.

[KvHagedorn]

It wasn't "unrecoverable", you just (like many of us at one time or another) didn't have the knowledge and/or tools necessary to do the recovery.

So tell me how you are supposed to recover the names of your files and folders when chkdisk deletes them all automatically on startup? A good recovery tool will recover the files and can even put them all in categories by file type, but you still have to sort through thousands of .txt or .doc or .xls or .jpg etc. files, which you have no clue about where they belonged or what they were supposed to be, because they are now generically renamed and tossed into a big pool with each other.

[az]

It wasn't "unrecoverable", you just (like many of us at one time or another) didn't have the knowledge and/or tools necessary to do the recovery.

Once upon a time there WERE more/better tools for FAT/FAT32, and certainly we all, at one time or another, felt "more comfortable" with it. But NTFS is actually MORE secure and MORE recoverable.

Technically, you are right, of course, but it was unrecoverable for me. It was also unrecoverable for OnTrack EasyRecovery Pro, the disks were not mountable in Linux. Maybe this is because this was two years ago, maybe I was being stupid, still, a burnt child dreads the fire (an idiom we have in exactly the same form in german, btw).

AZ

[MultimediaMan]

I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that disk may not be recoverable for a number of reasons both mechanical and non-mechanical.

Some hard disk problems are unrecoverable because of non-mechanical causes, for instance the buffer memory on the disk drive itself going bad. Sure, you can have a trained disaster recovery service try and swap the platters, but for even the most advanced technician, troubleshooting and recovering data from a drive with failing/failing components can be very, very difficult.

I've worked on a number of hard disk failures professionally, with root cause ranging from a faulty IDE drive cable to a SCSI drive that shorted and nearly burned a hole though the hard disk body (High power PSUs are not always a blessing...).

For most users, NTFS is really tough to beat. It is secure, very crash tolerant and fairly fast.

[az]

MMM, the disk has had no hardware failure and is in fact running flawlessly again after a format (can't remember if that was low-level). I posted for help here at that time, but nobody was able to solve my problems.

AZ

[MultimediaMan]

And the drive was previously it was formatted NTFS?

I've run into issues with fragmented MFTs with NTFS, and those can be tricky to recover. Can you point me to the thread? I am curious.

[Gurm]

You shouldn't EVER have to low-level format a modern drive.

Some points:

KvH: Don't run Chkdsk. Pretty simple. If you know it's going to munch your data don't run it. Chkdsk is good at fixing crosslinked files or removing bogus directory entries. It will NOT recover your lost data. If your drive has lost a bunch of data, DO NOT run chkdsk.

OnTrack: EZ Recovery Pro is... well... garbage. I hate to say it, but it has SERIOUS limitations. It was really great before Windows XP came out, but now... pretty useless. It doesn't support non-IDE discs AT ALL. That's great - 90% of the people who REALLY NEED recovery run SCSI. It just quits to the desktop if you have any SATA drives installed. THAT'S good functionality. Honest.

Currently I run a program called Restorer 2000, but I'm open to any and all suggestions, and regularly switch programs - I have no fixed allegiances.