NTFS vs FAT32

[UnseenMenace]

I am aware of the added security of NTFS and the fact that a Win2k install takes up a little less space using NTFS but has anyone actually done benchmarks to discover if a difference in performance exists? Obviously this would have to be identical installs apart from the file system, so it could only be done on the same PC.. has anyone done this yet?

[Kingslayer]

Yes. I have run my RAID-0 drives in benchmarks in the same system both with NTFS and FAT32. NTFS won out. Both were done with only Win2k and Sandra installed. Not even the video drivers where installed. Both drives were defragged before doing the test.

NTFS didn't win by much and it makes me wonder if it would be different in a single CPU system.

[dolemitecomputer]

Originally posted by UnseenMenace
I am aware of the added security of NTFS and the fact that a Win2k install takes up a little less space using NTFS but has anyone actually done benchmarks to discover if a difference in performance exists? Obviously this would have to be identical installs apart from the file system, so it could only be done on the same PC.. has anyone done this yet?

You might want to go Storage Review (http://www.storagereview.com). They benchmark most of the hard drives with both NTFS and FAT 32. From what I have seen there is no difference between the two for latency. I wouldn't recommend using Sandra to test hard drives. Maybe use HDTach or IOmeter.

[ken257]

I haven't done benchmarks but from using both filesystems I don't "feel" a differance between the two. NTFS is the way to go because your data is far less likely to get corrupt or fragmanted, just overall more reliable. The only good reason to use Fat32 is if you dual boot with another OS that can't read NTFS.