Folding! NTFS v FAT 32

[FoldingAddict]

I recently reinstalled Windows 2000 on my PII 400 machine, and used the FAT 32 file system instead of NTFS, which I normally use. After setting up the F@H client version 3.11, and installing EMIII, I noticed that I gained about 2 minutes of folding time on the P60x proteins. So far the only difference I can find in my installation is that I used the FAT file system instead of NTFS. So, I’m wondering if anybody else has seen any folding speed increases by using the FAT file system as opposed to using the NTFS file system. I want my dad to switch on his machine, but he won’t unless I give him a reason besides, “it just does”.;) Thanks.

[portorock]

Well, fat is a little faster than NTFS as it doesn't have to encrypt info. That may be the diff

[FoldingAddict]

Originally posted by portorock
Well, fat is a little faster than NTFS as it doesn't have to encrypt info. That may be the diff

Yes I know. My dads big question is, how does a non IO intensive application run faster because of a simple change like switching allocation tables?

[Guero]

That is a good question. Probably the only person who could answer that would be from Stanford. I say post the same question in the folding forums for Vijay!

[FoldingAddict]

Originally posted by Guero
That is a good question. Probably the only person who could answer that would be from Stanford. I say post the same question in the folding forums for Vijay!

Good idea, i'll head over there right now.:)

[Guero]

I like your new av better than that eclipse. If you change it I may want to borrow it someday!

[FoldingAddict]

Originally posted by Guero
I like your new av better than that eclipse. If you change it I may want to borrow it someday!

;) i'll change it in 2 hours probably hahah.

[the_poche]

Could it be just because its a fresh install? Less junk on the hard drive and memory?.... just a thought

[FoldingAddict]

Originally posted by the_poche
Could it be just because its a fresh install? Less junk on the hard drive and memory?.... just a thought

No, I had benchmarked it both with NTFS and FAT 32, with only fresh installs.

[Loud]

Originally posted by FoldingAddict
Yes I know. My dads big question is, how does a non IO intensive application run faster because of a simple change like switching allocation tables?

NTFS increases clock usage by the system, whether you're doing something with the file system or not. I don't know all the fine details, but I remember enough to be sure about this.

This extra system overhead decreases clock ticks available to the folding core, resulting in longer time frames.

[FoldingAddict]

Originally posted by Loud


NTFS increases clock usage by the system, whether you're doing something with the file system or not. I don't know all the fine details, but I remember enough to be sure about this.

This extra system overhead decreases clock ticks available to the folding core, resulting in longer time frames.

Thanks for the info Loud! hehe I can always count on you.:) I'll tell my dad about this and see if he can make up any other excuses not to change file systems.

[Roger24]

Why? 2 minutes less on a WU is not a good enough reason to switch to FAT32 IMO. It's like removing the airbag and seatbelts from your car to make it slightly lighter and go 1 MPH faster :rolleyes:
I'll never switch back to FAT32, ever.

[FoldingAddict]

Originally posted by Roger24
Why? 2 minutes less on a WU is not a good enough reason to switch to FAT32 IMO. It's like removing the airbag and seatbelts from your car to make it slightly lighter and go 1 MPH faster :rolleyes:
I'll never switch back to FAT32, ever.

2 minutes per frame on a PII translates to about 4 hours of extra folding time on a p180, that's big.

To update, I loaded up windows again with FAT32 and setup folding. Again things were faster than they were with NTFS. Then, I opened a command prompt and type convert C: /fs:ntfs And then rebooted. It converted back to NTFS of course, and when I finally got back into windows and started up folding, it was no faster or slower. That’s really weird! On fresh installs NTFS is inherently slower, but with simple conversions NTFS is exactly the same. Now I’m really confused.:confused:

[Roger24]

When you convert a disk to NTFS, you get 512KB clusters, maybe that's what causes it?