What are the possible consequences of converting FAT32 into NTFS?

[sweater]

Just wonderin, what are the possible consequences that may possibly happens badly if I convert my FAT32 C drive into NTFS...while leaving the D drive as was still as FAT32? ::) ???

Any experiences??? :dry:

I have Windows xp pro sp2...;)

[DVD+R]

Not sure of FAT32 to NTFS, but I converted NTFS to FAT32 with PartitionMagic 8, and I saw a performance increase, Systems operating on FAT32 have less integrity checks to perform, therefor programs are considerably faster running on FAT32 than they are on NTFS I also have an external drive running NTFS, and C Drive running FAT32 no problems at all, so I cant see there being any problems vice versa:)

[ThunderZ]

As long as the drive with the OS is NTFS then there should be no problem at all. NTFS can see\read the FAT and FAT32 file system, but not the other way around.

[dantz]

-{ Quote: "Just wonderin, what are the possible consequences that may possibly happens badly if I convert my FAT32 C drive into NTFS...while leaving the D drive as was still as FAT32? ::) ??? " }-
Look out for the cluster size. If you do a straight conversion you will end up with 512 byte clusters instead of the usual 4096. 512 is too small for most purposes, and this will likely slow you down.

[zcv]

-{ Quote: "As long as the drive with the OS is NTFS then there should be no problem at all. NTFS can see\read the FAT and FAT32 file system, but not the other way around." }-
Hi ThunderZ,

The premise is wrong.

Its not the file system that sees or not sees, its the OS that can read the file system or not read the file system.

XP can read either file system - it is 9X OS's that can't read NTFS.

I have 2 XP's running dual boot mode. One OS's boot partition is FAT32, the other NTFS. The data partitions for both are also mixed. No issues, all transparent.

[farmerlee]

I've had good and bad runs with coverting between file systems. Worst case scenario was the conversion screwed up midway thru and i lost most of the data on the partition.

[Ice_Czar]

there are two possible downsides

1.NTFS employs alternative data streams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Data_Streams), basically a "hidden" portion of the filesystem that has for quite a while been a security concern, but its only been recently that malware has truly started to employ it, the lastest generation of rootkits and trojans are employing it and there is an advantage to using FAT32 under those circumstances. The tradeoff is permissions, performance and recoverability (http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_basics.htm).

2. If the disk was formatted with a Win98 boot disk or in Win98 itself you'll likely end up with a little extra "slack" when converting unless you follow these procedures http://aumha.org/win5/a/ntfscvt.php
but in truth its an issue becoming less and less common as time goes by. Thats just for conversion from Win9X formatted partitions, not XP\W2K FAT32 partitioned and formated disks

another possible advantage to FAT32 is Linux reads it natively and easier than having to mount and access NTFS partitions\volumes.

[zcv]

Some more considerations:

FAT32 is prone to greater fragmentation.

If planning on having files with record sizes greater than 4GB - then NTFS is a must.

Aside from those considerations, If the partition is 80 GB or less, no meaningfull gain in efficiency, in fact, there is evidence that FAT32 is more efficient in that circumstance.

I personally don't see any difference in performance, other than the increase in fragmentation on the FAT32 partitions.

[FastGame]

-{ Quote: "Look out for the cluster size. If you do a straight conversion you will end up with 512 byte clusters instead of the usual 4096." }-
Yep, 512 isn't the most efficient size for NTFS.

[sweater]

Yaikss..!!! :wacko:

I'm a little bit puzzled, coz others only mentioned the good things of converting fat32 into ntfs and didn't say anything very bad like what you've said here...:dry:

Actually, at present each of my drive is 20Gig, c and d...total 40Gigs...all FAT32. No problem using them, but I am a little bit concern that others said that it really can improved pc performance using the NTFS than FAT32. But, hearing what others said here, I am a little bit hesitant converting my drives. Any recommendations??//

Or it's more better to convert all drives into NTFS? ???

I have changed some settings on my pc using TuneUp Utilities 2007 like the boot-screens etc...do I have to return back all into its xp default settings before converting fat32 into ntfs? ??? ::)

[WSFuser]

id change all the drives to NTFS, but thats just me.

and no u dont need to return back any settings before conversion.

[sweater]

-{ Quote: " I converted NTFS to FAT32 with PartitionMagic 8, and I saw a performance increase, Systems operating on FAT32 have less integrity checks to perform, therefor programs are considerably faster running on FAT32 than they are on NTFS :)" }-

REALLY!!! :o :o :o ??? :dry: :blink:

[sweater]

-{ Quote: "id change all the drives to NTFS, but thats just me." }-

Did it changes anything or all of ur datas still intact and untouch by that conversion??/

Any considerable performance increase??? ???

[Ice_Czar]

the main reasons to convert are reliability (generally can fix itself)
and security (NTFS permissions)

I wouldnt anticipate any issues with a basic conversion
but you should have your data backed up anyway, better now than later


however, based on how paranoid you are (meaning what is it your trying to protect)
the ADS\rootkit issue is something to consider

either course has alternatives to make up for the other's defciencies
(FAT32 w\ religious constant backups or NTFS with an indepth defense)

FAT32 can have a performance advantage, if the volume is small enough, but it fades as size increases and eventually NTFS gains the performance advantage, a well thought out partitioning strategy employing multiple HDDs\channels tuned to what your access pattern is will have a much larger effect on performance then the adoption of either filesystem

[zcv]

-{ Quote: "at present each of my drive is 20Gig, c and d...total 40Gigs...all FAT32. " }-

-{ Quote: "If the partition is 80 GB or less, no meaningfull gain in efficiency, in fact, there is evidence that FAT32 is more efficient in that circumstance.

I personally don't see any difference in performance, other than the increase in fragmentation on the FAT32 partitions." }-

-{ Quote: "
however, based on how paranoid you are (meaning what is it your trying to protect)
the ADS\rootkit issue is something to consider

FAT32 can have a performance advantage, if the volume is small enough, but it fades as size increases and eventually NTFS gains the performance advantage, a well thought out partitioning strategy employing multiple HDDs\channels tuned to what your access pattern is will have a much larger effect on performance then the adoption of either filesystem" }-

Leave it alone sweater, not going to do a thing for you and has the potential to really create a problem if something goes wrong.

[bigc73542]

Regardless what you hear, NTFS is more secure and more efficent. Why do you think they changed it to NTFS. Most XP home computers have a seperate partition in fat32 for the restore system but on every XP pro or Win Media edition I have used they have the restore integrated in the "C" drive as NTFS because of higher security standards in those two Os's. ( Bottom line, NTFS is the better choice.)

If you will notice in the screenshot, no "D" drive.

[WSFuser]

-{ Quote: "Did it changes anything or all of ur datas still intact and untouch by that conversion??/

Any considerable performance increase??? ???" }-
actually ive never converted my disks (that i remember). i always format as NTFS.

[zcv]

-{ Quote: "NTFS because of higher security standards in those two Os's. ( Bottom line, NTFS is the better choice.)

If you will notice in the screenshot, no "D" drive." }-
Hi bigc73542

Another reason is because FAT32 doesn't support HD partition sizes beyond 160 GB.

The higher security standards are appropriate for multi user environments.

We'll agree to disagree on this issue in this context - small partition sizes.

Curious as to what the single partition issue has to do with this?

For the record: run dual boot envronment on two internal drives, each devided into OS only partitions with data partitions.

[bigc73542]

only mentioned the lack of a "D" drive in fat32 on the win media edition and also on most XP pro systems to illustrate that they quit useing fat32 on the os even for sys restore because of the efficency and security of NTFS. system restore in NTFS seems to work much better than the ones in fat32.

[sweater]

After listening to some debate here, and also with a little kind of my own research and my "intuition"...then, it tells me that I'd better retain my FAT32 drives as what they are. 8) ;)

Actually, this site here gives me an idea of what should I choose:

http://www.comp.ro/QWFAT32_NTFS.htm

Anyway, for protection issues bout FAT32..did u know that I'm a Wilders member? He, he, he just kidding...;D

[DVD+R]

What I did encounter with converting my drive was, that all software that was licenced, had the licence key removed by the conversion,and I had to enter serial keys in several software again :blink:

[sweater]

-{ Quote: "What I did encounter with converting my drive was, that all software that was licenced, had the licence key removed by the conversion,and I had to enter serial keys in several software again :blink:" }-

Interesting but sounds weird....:gack: :blink: :wacko:

So for others out there planning to convert their drives, better check first that you have keep your license keys and serial keys in a safe place that u can remember..or else....goodbye. ;D ;) 8)

[Nick Rhodes]

-{ Quote: "t
another possible advantage to FAT32 is Linux reads it natively and easier than having to mount and access NTFS partitions\volumes." }-

Current stable version of the Kernel has good ntfs readonly support, I managed to mount ntfs easily and copy stuff I needed.

[Alphalutra1]

-{ Quote: "Current stable version of the Kernel has good ntfs readonly support, I managed to mount ntfs easily and copy stuff I needed." }-
Also, ntfs-3g (http://www.ntfs-3g.org/), the read-write driver, is done with testing and now is completely stable, v1. It works very well from my experience, and also allows writing, which is an advantage over the driver in the kernel.

Alphalutra1

[noway]

-{ Quote: "Hi bigc73542

Another reason is because FAT32 doesn't support HD partition sizes beyond 160 GB.

" }-

I have a 200GB FAT32 partition for data on my XP system. I used a 3rd party program to create it...I think Acronis Disk Director.

[Tbird100636]

I converted my HD to NTFS without re-aligning the clusters to 4KB size and my performance has suffered. Is there any way to re-align them without having to do a clean install of Windows??? The Bootit NG program does not allow re-aligning after conversion. My HD is 40GB in size.

[GlobalForce]

Welcome to the forum Tbird100636,

I don't own a copy of Paragon Partition Manager but someone over on ee had brought up an old Scot's Newsletter (January 31, 2002 - Vol. 2, Issue No. 20) stating it was capable of converting ntfs cluster size from 512 to 4. A few member's here run it and am confident the one's who do will comment.

http://www.partition-manager.com/

On a forty gig drive it may be prudent to just reload. The option's for you to weigh.


Steve

[Tbird100636]

Thanks!!! I'll give the partition manager a try!!!