FAT vs NTfs

Posted: 06-15-2005, 06:35 PM
Hi All

just see if there are any limitation to using FAT instead of NTFS, such
as not being able to implement HORM, EFW or other features that i may
need NTFS.

thanks for letting me pick your brains
-BA4^3

Reply With Quote

Responses to "FAT vs NTfs"

KM
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: FAT vs NTfs
Posted: 06-15-2005, 07:41 PM
BattleAngel444,

There is no limitations on using FAT or NTFS file systems. Either of these will work fine with EWF.
HORM is also not a problem as long as you implement it properly (dismount unprotected volumes before hibernation).

There is however some optimizations points for using FAT instead of NTFS if EWF is implemented. Basically, you don't gain much of
nice features of NTFS (like reliability, stability, etc.) if EWF protects the volume. Also, NTFS is more chatter than FAT (more
writes) and that puts it behind FAT while selecting a FS for image with EWF or to run on CF.

--
KM,
BSquare Corp.
www.bsquare.com

> Hi All
>
> just see if there are any limitation to using FAT instead of NTFS, such
> as not being able to implement HORM, EFW or other features that i may
> need NTFS.
>
> thanks for letting me pick your brains
> -BA4^3

Reply With Quote
Matt Kellner \(MS\)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: FAT vs NTfs
Posted: 06-15-2005, 07:47 PM
Hi BA. There are some basic differences between FAT and NTFS, but as far as
I know, those differences shouldn't affect such features as HORM or EWF.
The main differences between the two file systems affect security stuff,
such as file sharing and per-file permissions - NTFS will allow you to
specify permissions on a file-by-file and folder-by-folder basis, as well as
for file sharing, whereas FAT does not give you this ability. If you have a
need to take advantage of the added security of NTFS, I would recommend
using that system.

On the other hand, FAT is generally cleaner for use with EWF and El Torito
configurations, as the OS doesn't do nearly as many "maintenance" writes to
the file system in FAT. Windows regularly updates an NTFS partition with
last-accessed information, etc., that it doesn't do with FAT (theoretically,
it should only modify the FAT tables whenever any new data is written to the
partition). Therefore, if you're using EWF, you may find FAT will use less
overall overlay space. (However, regardless of the file system you use, the
efficiency of your overlay will depend greatly on how your configuration is
set up.)

--
Matt Kellner (mattkell@online.microsoft.com)
STE, Windows Embedded Group

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
===============================

"BattleAngel444" <garvin.seto@digidreamerz.com> wrote in message
news:1118856918.240142.6870@g47g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...
> Hi All
>
> just see if there are any limitation to using FAT instead of NTFS, such
> as not being able to implement HORM, EFW or other features that i may
> need NTFS.
>
> thanks for letting me pick your brains
> -BA4^3
>

Reply With Quote
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ntfs Windows XP Performance & Maintenance 18 06-01-2004 09:18 PM
FAT 32 to NTFS ? XP HE or XP Pro ? Lee Windows XP Performance & Maintenance 2 10-22-2003 10:34 PM
ntfs win2000 to ntfs win nt dean Windows XP Basics 6 09-18-2003 03:52 AM
Time limit for "convert c: /fs:ntfs" (convert FAT to NTFS)? John Windows XP 1 07-10-2003 05:22 PM
NTFS R.Cameron Windows XP Embedded 0 07-09-2003 04:36 PM


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90