Format/Fdisk FAT32->NTFS (W2K)

[minion]

Hi,

I've 2 questions about FAT32 to NTFS conversion.

1) Sorry for this amateur question but i cant find it in forums. How do I format a FAT32 partition as NTFS (not convert) ? Is there any format.com utility for Win2000 like the Win98 format.com file?
If yes, where can it be found?

2) Which is better(not necessarily easier), formatting a FAT32 partition as NTFS or fdisk first(recreate partition) before formatting ?

Thanks a lot.
Through this forum I'm picking up knowledge rapidly, so many experts out there ready to help....

[POBrien]

During the 2000 install you'll have the option to format the drive/volume.

Choose NTFS (Fdisk doesn't matter. same outcome)

NTFS offers a smaller cluster size for your data storage. This equates too faster seek times when reading\writing data. Much more efficient. NTFS also offers security over the local machine.

Patrick (http://www.winguides.com/forums/sendprivate.php?Cat=&User=POBrien&Board=&Number=&what=online&page=&view=&sb=&part=&vc=><font)</font color=green> /images/forums/icons/smile.gif
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.winguides.com/subscribe/?guide=registry>WinGuides</a>

[kef999]

Minion,

I've been planning to do exactly the same as you but I'm now having second thoughts. This is because, on ntcompatible.com at the moment, there's controversy as to whether NTFS results in slower file access and overall operation than FAT32. POBrien might not be correct, when he asserts that NTFS is faster. One particular individual on ntcompatible has run NTFS and FAT32 side-by-side and swears that FAT32 is twice as fast as NTFS.

To answer your question, though - to Format, rather than Convert, you'll need to backup your personal files, etc first (ideally, to another partition, but it could be to a CD). I'd then use Win2K's Disk Management to format my partitions other than the root. Then, personally, I would want to make absolutely certain that my root partition [C] is well-and-truly formatted. To do that, I'd use a Win98 boot floppy. First of all, go into the BIOS and set the first boot device to FDD. Then turn off the computer and turn on again with the Win98 boot floppy inserted. You'll not want CD support at that stage. This will get you to an A prompt, where you can envoke FDISK, FORMAT, or whatever.

However, before formatting C, it'd be an idea to type fdisk /mbr at the A prompt. This will clear the existing Master Boot Record and give you a clean sheet (doing that will prevent Win2K booting; once Win2K has been reinstalled, a new MBR will have been written there). Then format C. Then, at the A prompt again, type sys c: (this will make that partition DOS-bootable; you may or may not want that). Alternatively, you could use format c/s.

You'd then need to power off, turn on again and enter the BIOS. There, set the boot sequence to CD first. Turn the computer off then turn on again with the Win2K installation CD inserted. Follow the instructions for installing Win2K. One of the first things it'll ask about is whether you want to format to NTFS. Accept this. If the partition size is 2GB or more, it'll format to the default cluster size of 4KB.

As soon as the installation of Win2K has completed, install Service Pack 2 (SP2). You might want to wait until SP3 is out, though, so consider that well before even starting the 'conversion'. If not, definitely install SP2, as it's pretty much essential. I'd also recommend you apply the hotfix for the hard disk cache writeback problem (Q281672.exe), if that's an issue also. Finally, restore your backed-up files.

[kef999]

Minion,

Before you do ANYTHING, I suggest you go to www.ntcompatible.com and, if you haven't done so already, register as a forum member and then take a look at two particular threads there that are relevant to both you and me. These are in the forum section called Tips & Configuration Tweaks (XP). The two threads are entitled:

NTFS Performance

NTFS Formatting Question.

These were intiated by jwl812.

Hope this helps.

I've not found anyone yet who can truly counter jwl812's finding that NTFS is noticeably slower than FAT32. What sort of partition sizes are you using, as I suspect that that has some influence on the administration of files and hence speed of operation? Perhaps you'd like to do the 'conversion' regardless? If you do, please let us all know if NTFS works slower!

[MrMoke]

Are we missing the original question? I don't think minion ever said anything about speed, just ease. Go to Control Panel/Admistrative Tools/Computer Management. Click on the Disk Management folder. This tool will let you create and format new partitions in either FAT32 or NTFS. It's obviously not as good as something like Partition Magic, which lets you do almost anything your self-destructive heart desires, but it gets the basic job done.

[kef999]

Yes, I've already suggested using Disk Management (DM). However, you can't use DM, or anything like it, to format the boot partition.

You could, if you wanted, leave the formatting of the boot partition till reinstalling Win2K and then just allow the Win2K setup to do the format operation. But if you want to format C before that, there's no real option (other than buying and using something like Partition Magic) but to use DOS and the command prompt and so that's where the Win98 floppy comes in.

True, speed was not queried, but perhaps Minion might now decide not to bother. If you're sensible, you'll use NTFS for what you'll get out of it - not just because everyone else appears to use it - but, if it causes a slowdown compared to FAT32, you might decide not to bother. The jury is still out on it.

[MrMoke]

Darn Jury is Always out :)

[BertImmenschuh]

I've always wondered just how much slower Win2000/XP is on an NTFS disk versus a FAT32 disk, but have shrugged it off as meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I think what may slow down the OS is tied in more with drive indexing and security checking.

[minion]

Firstly, thanks to everyone 4 helping !

Here's my situation exactly :-

I have a 20GB drive with 2 partitions. Drive C is for Win2k & programs , drive D for backup/personal files. They're split equally (10GB each). However, at the current moment I'm only using a fraction of these capacities.
I've been reading a lot about NTFS security features, so maybe I wanna convert both drives to NTFS. But if NTFS proves to be slower than FAT32, I might abandon my plan.

If I go ahead with installing Win2k on NTFS, is it a good idea to convert both drives to NTFS or leave drive D as it is?
Will constantly transferring files back and forth between NTFS & FAT32 partitions cause data corruption/losses?(I think not, but just to confirm)

Can I use Win2k's format.com command instead of letting Win2k installation do the NTFS formatting for me?

What benefits do I get by doing fdisk /mbr before formatting (as suggested by ptneale)?

Lots of questions there but thanks again !!

[kef999]

My own expertise is still limited and, indeed, it was BertImmenschuh who, some postings ago, answered much the same questions for me. (I'm indebted to you, Bert). But personally I'll not go ahead with my own 'conversion' until I've been convinced that NTFS isn't going to be noticeably slower. I'd guess that most advocates of NTFS are people who've probably never previously run Win2K on FAT32, so they'll have no idea whatsoever whether NTFS is slower or not. That's why I'm more inclined to pay heed to jwl812 in ntcompatible, as he/she has run identical NTFS and FAT32 side-by-side (with XP).

Minion, the partition split you've suggested is a sensible one but note that it's around 8GB that, in FAT32, cluster size changes from 4KB to 8KB, whereas in NTFS cluster size remains at 4KB from 2GB upwards. Some people seem to think that cluster size has a direct bearing on overall speed, by affecting fragmentation of files.

I'm not sure what you mean by using WIN2K's format.com command. Please bear in mind that you cannot format the C partition (assuming C is the boot partition) from within Win2K. You can't destroy the contents of C while you're using C to perform that function!! You have to do it instead outside of Win2K, either using Command prompt (eg from a Win98 floppy), FDISK, or when you reinstall Win2K.

Doing fdisk /mbr should clear away any existing boot information left on the disk. For instance, you might have previously been running a dual-boot setup. As I understand it, formatting doesn't erase that. Perhaps Bert could expand on this, for you.

If you're prepared to go to the trouble, you might want to perform your own real-life comparative test on NTFS v FAT32, by either running identical partitions side-by-side or by going back to one 20GB partition and running first FAT32 then NTFS and seeing and feeling if NTFS is any slower. But you'd need to careful and back up your partitions beforehand. Do you currently have full partition backup to CDs, or could you backup to CD all your personal files and others you want to keep?

For you, with partitioning to the sizes you have (2 X 10GB), this is probably the only way you're going to settle your mind about the speed of NTFS. Me? I'm using four FAT32 partitions, each around 16GB.

[kef999]

I hasten to add that it's not obvious to me how you'd run two identical partitions, ie Win2K in both of them, with one set up as FAT32 and the other as NTFS, and be able to easily switch between the two of them. jwl812 didn't say how he/she had had his/her machine set up.

Perhaps the only sensible way of doing it is to set up one large partition as FAT32, run it, then 'convert' to NTFS. Provided you thought carefully about backing up your original two partitions, you could always delete the one large partition when you've finished experimenting and then recreate two partitions, then restore your backed up files.

Sorry this is a bit off-beam from your original question.

[minion]

The NTFS posts at ntcompatible.com make for some heavy reading.
After reading them and articles from other sites, I'm beginning to think that converting to
NTFS may not be such a good idea IF there's no real need to use it.
Also, I understand that if I go with NTFS, I can kiss good ol' MSDOS goodbye.
That's not very appealing to me.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------
I hasten to add that it's not obvious to me how you'd run two identical partitions, ie Win2K in both of them, with one set up as FAT32 and the other as NTFS, and be able to easily switch between the two of them.
------------------------------------------------------------

What I meant was, I wanna have drive C in NTFS and install Win2k on it, and leave drive D with FAT32. Drive D contains all my personal files and they've been backed up to CDRs without problems.
Obviously with this config, I'm going to be transferring files between C(NTFS) and D(FAT32) drives, doing my backup & other tasks. Can copying/moving files between NTFS & FAT32 lead to data loss/corruption?
I believe this is bullsh**, can someone confirm?

[kef999]

Yup, I found those posts at ntcompatible heavy going as well. One or two people there strayed into defragging issues.

I concur with your own feelings about converting to NTFS. Sure, I'd like to have the extra recoverability and reliability that NTFS is supposed to give, but I don't want that at the expense of speed.

You say "What I meant was.......data loss/corruption?" As far as I can see, what you're after here is no problem. If you want to leave drive D alone, then basically all you need do is a reinstall of Win2K on C and choose, in its setup, to format C as an NTFS partition. Remember that, at that point, you'll lose everything on C.

But, if you want, you can format C BEFORE reinstalling Win2K. To do that, use a Win98 floppy. I think, though, that formatting in this way will simply erase all the data but still leave the C partition as a FAT32. However, you can make the change to NTFS when you then reinstall Win2K.

My understanding is that, under Win2K, you can freely transfer files between NTFS and FAT32 without any problem (which is NOT the case with Win98).

[Phaedrus]

FWIW...

I just finished a round of "playing" with Win2K on both FAT32 and NTFS on a Celeron 1 GHz w/ 256MB and either a 40 GB or 60 GB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda HD (I swapped them back & forth a couple of times, had one as FAT32 and the other as NTFS). I have to say there was a noticeable, but not terribly significant (IMHO) performance -- speed, that is -- degradation using NTFS, even with file indexing turned off. Given its other advantages, however, I elected to go with NTFS in this instance, due to an expressed desire for file security and recoverability. This system is intended for running office applications, and will not be used for either gaming or graphics, so it was an easy call on my part. Were there an interest in more speed-dependent applications, I might have chosen otherwise (and I wouldn't have gotten them a Celeron, either).

As it is, I may yet install WinXP*, solely because I have begun to realize that the users of this system may never get their heads around running Win2K, and I have no desire to be its administrator. (*Either that, or Win98SE)

Cheers,

P

[kef999]

Phaedrus,

Do you assume, then, that fitting a faster CPU and memory will offset the degradation one's likely to see in NTFS, compared to FAT32?

In your reported observation, you do seem to have confirmed what I gauged from reading the official blurb on NTFS and FAT32.

[Phaedrus]

Possibly.

I would consider a faster drive to be more likely to yield an improvement, since once program and data files have been loaded into memory, any lag inherent to the file system shouldn't be a factor. That said, more RAM will help to reduce the amount of HD read/write cycles, and is a cheap, easy, and effective way to improve performance (within certain limits, of course).

The file-loading time was what I really noticed (presumably, file-writing took longer as well, though this was less noticeable). Anything that would help the processor find & load a file faster, or reduce the need to do so as often, would probably yield the greater bang/buck. I'm thinking of trying CacheMan (if it will work with Win2K) just to see how well it works to help this (minor) drawback to NTFS.


Cheers,

P

[MrMoke]

For what it's worth, you can use Partition Magic to experiment with just about any file system you wish to use. Here's a snip from the PM specs page.

Convert between File Systems without losing data - With PartitionMagic, convert file systems without losing data. Conversions include FAT to FAT32 and NTFS; FAT32 to FAT; NTFS to FAT and FAT32; Primary to Logical and vice versa; and FAT32 to NTFS under Windows 2000 Professional.

And if you use Drive Image to backup the partition, you can always put it back to it's original state if you crud it up.