[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Mounting NTFS partitions....



Oh, I should've read this letter before I sent my previous one:

Ira Abramov wrote:


> you can easely check
> it by benchmarking an NT workstation running on the same hardware, once
> with NTFS and once with FAT, and see that NTFS is up to 20% slower.

Ok, now this is something I personally tried, and in my work I also had some
experts advise me on this (and I mean experts such as DEC technicians, Oracle
advisors and various consulting companies). It is *very* well known that no
company in its right mind would use FAT if NTFS was available, because NTFS is
superior in everything, speed included. And about the benchmark, I actually
did do the test, and NTFS was faster at all the tests, not to mention being
hundreds of percent faster than FAT on drives close to 1GB. And this is all
before we even start to discuss drives that are over 1GB (and I would *really*
like to hear somebody say that FAT is a sane choice in >1GB).

I might not know much about Linux, but I do about NT..

If you're stuck with FAT (and sometimes you are), I can understand. But if you
have the choice? There's no question about it.


(*) Comment: The exception to the above is very small hard drives (very few
hundreds of MB)
--
-------------------------
Aviram Jenik

"The Only Difference Between Me
And a Madman Is That I Am Not Mad"

G-Tek Technologies LTD.

-------------------------
Today's quote:
Let us begin by committing ourselves to the truth -
to see it like it is, and tell it like it is -
to find the truth, to speak the truth, and live the truth.
                         - Richard Nixon. accepting the Presidential
                              Nomination, 1968