FAT32 or NTFS
I am getting a new hard drive (Western Digital 120GB w/8MB cache) for backup. It will be the primary slave device. Should I format it to FAT32 or NTFS? BTW, is that hard drive only sold in OEM? I can't seem to find one that is sold in retail.
I am getting a new hard drive (Western Digital 120GB w/8MB cache) for backup. It will be the primary slave device. Should I format it to FAT32 or NTFS?
BTW, is that hard drive only sold in OEM? I can't seem to find one that is sold in retail. Any help is appreciated.
BTW, is that hard drive only sold in OEM? I can't seem to find one that is sold in retail. Any help is appreciated.
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Definately go with NTFS. It's far superior to FAT32; faster and can self-correct errors (don't need to scandisk if the computer doesn't shut down correctly) Testing has shown that WD drives are optimized for this file system. NTFS does require more RAM to work well, but you shouldn't have any problems in a system w/ a 120 gig drive. The only "downside" to NTFS is that it tends to fragment a tiny bit faster than other file systems. Not a big deal though.
You can buy the JB model retail, it's sold under the "Special Edition" label.
You can buy the JB model retail, it's sold under the "Special Edition" label.
You are using a huge hard disk for backup. If you plan to store enormous files like mpeg2 on the hard disk, use NTFS. Fat32 has built in limitations on the sizes it can store.
On the other hand, if you want a quick way to get up and running using a bootable floppy, part of the hard disk will have to be Fat32 to accomodate that convenience. Since most systems now can use the CD to boot, this is not terribly compelling, but it is awfully convenient.
There is nothing that says that you cannot partition your backup drive to use both formats. If it is flexibility you desire in your backup, or if you want to run a Win9X product, partition and format your disk to have both Fat32 and NTFS. For that matter, you might even want to leave room for Linux.
On the other hand, if you want a quick way to get up and running using a bootable floppy, part of the hard disk will have to be Fat32 to accomodate that convenience. Since most systems now can use the CD to boot, this is not terribly compelling, but it is awfully convenient.
There is nothing that says that you cannot partition your backup drive to use both formats. If it is flexibility you desire in your backup, or if you want to run a Win9X product, partition and format your disk to have both Fat32 and NTFS. For that matter, you might even want to leave room for Linux.
I currently have 2 60GB HD's. 1 for "temporary backup" which I store all of my "backup" files on and organize. The second for permanent backup which I use MSBACKUP on the first HD and backup to the 2nd once a month or after huge file changes. I then disconnect the power from the 2nd HD.
My backup file on the 2nd drive is currently around 55GB which cannot be achieved with FAT32. My backups are also more secure and less prone to errors than a FAT32 filesystem.
Just got my first 120GB HD today and am about to get my second...these are to replaced my 60gb HD's!
My backup file on the 2nd drive is currently around 55GB which cannot be achieved with FAT32. My backups are also more secure and less prone to errors than a FAT32 filesystem.
Just got my first 120GB HD today and am about to get my second...these are to replaced my 60gb HD's!
NTFS all the way...in case you need another vote. Since doing so, a sudden power loss has yet to give me a CHKDSK, unlike FAT32. Much better OS. People claim a speed loss, but if there is, I can't tell.
NTFS. There is no good reason for using FAT (either 16 or 32) under any NT OS.
Quote:
Make sure you install the NTFS patch that will be part of SP1, or you will be prompted with a "boot device not present" on boot All IDE drives formatted with NTFS are prone to this, if you have "write caching" enabled (duhh, why should I have it disabled, as the M$'s workaround suggests!!!)
I've never had that problem and I use IDE drives formatted as NTFS...
Make sure you install the NTFS patch that will be part of SP1, or you will be prompted with a "boot device not present" on boot All IDE drives formatted with NTFS are prone to this, if you have "write caching" enabled (duhh, why should I have it disabled, as the M$'s workaround suggests!!!)
I've never had that problem and I use IDE drives formatted as NTFS...
Quote:
Make sure you install the NTFS patch that will be part of SP1, or you will be prompted with a "boot device not present" on boot All IDE drives formatted with NTFS are prone to this, if you have "write caching" enabled (duhh, why should I have it disabled, as the M$'s workaround suggests!!!)
Can you give me a link to the patch notes for this patch?
I've never applied it to a single PC and never experienced the issue you are listing, do the patch notes tell you under what circumstances this happens?
Make sure you install the NTFS patch that will be part of SP1, or you will be prompted with a "boot device not present" on boot All IDE drives formatted with NTFS are prone to this, if you have "write caching" enabled (duhh, why should I have it disabled, as the M$'s workaround suggests!!!)
Can you give me a link to the patch notes for this patch?
I've never applied it to a single PC and never experienced the issue you are listing, do the patch notes tell you under what circumstances this happens?
