Dell 9300 w/ 100 Gig Drive, 2 G Ram.

When a directory that contains large (2-3G) MPEG files is accessed/opened,
the machine locks up.

Cause? Is there a fix?

Only fix now is to close the now non-operative Explorer function to stop the
non-responding access, then delete the folder!

Also, is it true that NTFS drives will hold more MPEG data (per GB) than a
FAT32 drive? (almost embarrassed to ask this!) 'E' drive is a FAT32; 'C'
is NTFS. This came about as a result of partitioning (via Partition Command
software).

Wayne

Answered my own question regarding NTFS and FAT32. Just converted the tight
FAT32 drive to NTFS.

Other question? Still open.

Tks,
Wayne


"Wayne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:FSVPf.20674$G%2.4300@trnddc07...
> Dell 9300 w/ 100 Gig Drive, 2 G Ram.
>
> When a directory that contains large (2-3G) MPEG files is accessed/opened,
> the machine locks up.
>
> Cause? Is there a fix?
>
> Only fix now is to close the now non-operative Explorer function to stop
> the non-responding access, then delete the folder!
>
> Also, is it true that NTFS drives will hold more MPEG data (per GB) than a
> FAT32 drive? (almost embarrassed to ask this!) 'E' drive is a FAT32; 'C'
> is NTFS. This came about as a result of partitioning (via Partition
> Command software).
>
> Wayne
>
>
>

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:14:13 GMT, Wayne wrote:

> Also, is it true that NTFS drives will hold more MPEG data (per GB) than a
> FAT32 drive? (almost embarrassed to ask this!) 'E' drive is a FAT32; 'C'
> is NTFS. This came about as a result of partitioning (via Partition Command
> software).

Yes/no. The amount of space on a drive is pretty much a finite amount.
There is cluster size to consider. Due to the way files are stored, there
will be storage space lost to "slack space." Simple example: if using 4kb
clusters, a 5kb file will use two clusters as will an 8kb file. In general,
there is less slack space with smaller clusters. Accepting the default
cluster size for NTFS is a good choice.

Have read discussions by video folks arguing whether FAT32 configured with
large cluster size is more efficient for video performance than NTFS with
smaller cluster size. You lose more space with larger cluster sizes but
there are less clusters per file hence the performance improvement. An
interesting theory but I have no idea how the two file systems compare in
real life or if it matters with today's faster processors and fancy display
cards.

I only use NTFS for the drives on my XP systems. When it comes to video
files, I'm more concerned about maximum file size than the number of
clusters used....

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User