RE: [tlug] dualboot WinXP/Linux

[patrick.niessen@example.com]

> -----Original Message-----

> I don't know in what sense Jonathan means that NTFS is much 
> better than FAT 32 (I'm sure there must be good reasons for 
> this statement, probably based on facts that are outside of 
> my experience), but in my own experience, I have never seen 
> any sort of drop in performance when going from NTFS to FAT 
> 32 (a conversion that I make routinely with every computer I 
> have gotten with NTFS installed). Also, when trying to use 
> third-party drive backup apps like Ghost and Disk Image, the 
> speed is excruciatingly slow on NTFS, with frequent crashes.
> 
> I suspect Jonathan is referring to differences that appear at 
> the server level, as distinguished from a stand-alone work station?
> 


- NTFS is journaling while FAT is not
- FAT32 has a filesize limit of 2GB (bad if you want to work with large
digital video files eg. 1hr DV from your camcorder occupies min 4Gig on the
harddrive)
- FAT32 has also a partitionsize limit (I am not sure how much though)
- FAT32 has not access control mechanism while NTFS supports ACLs (ie. an
ordinary user can delete everything on a FAT volume)

...


Patrick