On paper, the journaling file system of NTFS is supposed to be more robust and less error-prone that a FAT (FAT12/16/32) file system.  (My experience over the past few years is that the difference is slight, but real.)  Advantage: NTFS.

The overhead in managing the NTFS file system can be significant in small volume sizes.  (That's one reason why you don't see NTFS flash drives.)  Advantage: FAT32

FAT32 cluster sizes balloon as the size of the volume increases.  Large clusters are quite inefficient at storing small files.  On a volume with lots of small files, such as you'll find in the windows and system32 directories, a 32KB cluster size could waste 30% of your disk space.  (That's why Microsoft's tools--fdisk and diskpart--discourage the user from creating FAT32 volumes larger than 32GB.  Technically, it's allowed, but practically, it's too inefficient.)  Advantage: NTFS.

FAT32 volumes are accessible from the most recent DOS operating systems.  Advantage: depends on whether you're a techie who does that sort of thing.

The FAT32 file system is an industry-wide standard, so is supported by numerous third-party utilities.  NTFS is proprietary, and I don't think Microsoft has ever fully published the specs.  (I suspect third-party tools that support NTFS have done a lot of reverse-engineering to figure out how NTFS works.)  Advantage: FAT32.

Bottom line: FAT32 is fine for small partition sizes, but NTFS is better for larger partitions.

On volumes smaller than 8GB, I generally use FAT32.  On volumes above 16GB, I use NTFS.  On volumes between 8-16GB, I'll use either, depending on whether I need the volume to be visible from DOS.  (Note that 8, 16, and 32 GB are breakpoints where FAT32 cluster sizes change.)

Hey thanks folks..............

Dan again, you are amazing and everything you said made sense to me.  I suspect in conclusion that the Primary drive usually consists of the OS and programs.  The logical and/or ext drives must house most everything else and thus are generally larger in containment of information.

One of the things I had heard of FAT32 advantage was speed access over NTFS.  I think I read somewhere on the MS site that that was true by about 10 to 20%.

I wonder how many folks out there have C: drives with under 20 gigs of info on them?  If most of us have 15 or more it sounds like NTFS is the way to go.  I also wonder how many folks out there have a C: FAT32 (OS) and a NTFS (data) combo for whatever reason?

If one uses (checked) NTFS with indexing service for fast file search and compressing drive to save space would that in theory cause the NTFS partition a slowness in general drive execution?

To comment on your question Brian my theory is this.  That because I had only a few 100 mbs available for virtual memory (total of 750mb - but I could only use a couple of 100) on the old C:, that caused the executions of cloning to do alot of give and take (I don't know the proper computer techy terms) shuffling, and swapping in order to get the job done.  After I moved the data files and folders as you suggested I went back into the computer virtual memory options and I changed the min and the max(about 800mb) which I theorized would allow the executions more of a straight shoot in processing the copying.  And of course the total size was cut in half (50%).  But that would in theory reduce the time to about 8 or 9 hrs but not down to 1.

Last night I ran Norton Win doc and N Disk doc, Adware, full virus scan and then defraged the C and D.  Today I have run Win doc twice again.  Each time it has found some errors especially since I moved a slug of data files to the D: drive.  On the old machine everything was on the C:

Amazing at how fast the 80 flys now compared to the 40 (and by the way due to budget constraints the specs on both drives are the same - only difference was size increase) when the drive is cleaned and organized.  I needed to test out most of my frequently used programs and data files before I do the image backup, which is what I have been doing today.  Then I plan to defrag again and then do a restore point.  Then the image to one of the large EXT drives for backup.  The jury is still out on whether I will change the C from FAT to NTFS.  I tend to like the arguments of Dan and as I look toward the future, figure my C: drive may reach 20gb in program size which a NTFS would be best (currently the C: is 13.5gb in size, pretty much borderline according to Dan.

Any other comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated.  The knowledge all of you gentlemen have so freely shared, I treasure highly and as the concept which I believe in, (PayItForward) it is my wish to help those in the future concerning their upgrading needs and working knowledge to accomplish their tasks themselves.  I am only able to do it because of the time, talents and skills you have generously shared with me.

Gratefully,
Mack

Mack wrote:

Brian wrote:

Brian is correct.  Cluster size is directly related to the total number of clusters the partition must support, whether those clusters are empty or in use.  The bigger the partition, the bigger the cluster size needs to be to keep the total number of clusters within a managable range.

The amount of wasted space (aka, "slack space") on a partition depends on the actual mix of files stored on the partition.  Large quantities of small files is murder when coupled with a large cluster size.

That's great, MadtKrandle you can benefit from this challenge of mine and from the great coaching of Brian, Dan and others in helping  me.

Dan and Brian I have 2 questions:
Since I have 13.5gb of data on C: I think I understand that I should make my C: format NTFS, correct?  I should convert it over from FAT32?

And second, I noticed that WinXP can convert FAT32 to NTFS.  Should I use XP or my Partition Magic to make this conversion?  Does one have a better quality track record over the other?

thx
Mack

PS  One of the reasons why I have not converted yet is because I had 2 gigs this last weekend, one in So Cal and the other in Tempe, AZ with more than 500 customers and I just did not want to take a chance that my computer would have any hicups while entertaining.  Everything did go smoothly with my computer, ext drives, etc, etc.  The only thing that happened was one of the outlets tripped and I lost about 4 minutes of playing time.  Who would have thunk that at the Chicago Cubs Spring Training Hohokum Stadium with commerical 20 amp breakers and outlets that 1/3 of my system would have caused the trip especially since I used three separate circuits at the stadium to run my equipment.  Anyhow thanks for getting me secure before this past big weekend!!!

So is there anything tricky in coverting from FAT32 to NTFS using Partition Magic?  Or just follow the prompts and it will guide me through this 4k alignment (which I don't understand), etc, etc?

thx
Mack

So am I to understand that its a 2 part process?

1. to go from Fat32 to 4k aligned

2.  Fat32 4k aligned to NTFS

And somewhere in this process do I choose what I want the partition size to be or is that done as a separate process, later?

thx
Mack

Great.........

thx again for being a greater 'puter mentor!!

Mack