Just got a couple of external USB2 drives - 500 gigs each - to
which I plan to write database-type backups.

They came formatted Fat32.

Is there any advantage in using NTFS for something like this?
i.e. just one or two humongous files that grow with each
incremental backup...
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Just got a couple of external USB2 drives - 500 gigs each - to
> which I plan to write database-type backups.
>
> They came formatted Fat32.
>
> Is there any advantage in using NTFS for something like this?
> i.e. just one or two humongous files that grow with each
> incremental backup...

How about that you cannot have a single file size over 4GB unless you use
NTFS?

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Per Shenan Stanley:
>How about that you cannot have a single file size over 4GB unless you use
>NTFS?

Bingo!

Thanks.
--
PeteCresswell

"(PeteCresswell)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> Just got a couple of external USB2 drives - 500 gigs each - to
> which I plan to write database-type backups.
>
> They came formatted Fat32.
>
> Is there any advantage in using NTFS for something like this?
> i.e. just one or two humongous files that grow with each
> incremental backup...

Extra data can be stored along with a file (such as what can be seen in the
Summary tab of the Properties page*) in what is known as an Alternate Data
Stream ("streams," for short). FAT32 does not support streams so they would
be lost.



*For any non-Office document, like a .TXT file. Office documents store this
information inside their regular data.

On Oct 22, 4:41 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
> Per Shenan Stanley:
>
> >How about that you cannot have a single file size over 4GB unless you use
> >NTFS?
>
> Bingo!
>
> Thanks.
> --
> PeteCresswell

If you are not "sharing" the drive with any older versions of Windows
(2000, ME, 98) than NTFS is best.

smlunatick wrote:

> On Oct 22, 4:41 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
>>Per Shenan Stanley:
>>
>>
>>>How about that you cannot have a single file size over 4GB unless you use
>>>NTFS?
>>
>>Bingo!
>>
>>Thanks.
>>--
>>PeteCresswell
>
>
> If you are not "sharing" the drive with any older versions of Windows
> (2000, ME, 98) than NTFS is best.

The native file system for Windows 2000 is NTFS, it can mount and read
NTFS volumes created by Windows XP. However, you are right that Windows
98/ME cannot read or write to NTFS volumes.

John

"Shenan Stanley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>> Just got a couple of external USB2 drives - 500 gigs each - to
>> which I plan to write database-type backups.
>>
>> They came formatted Fat32.
>>
>> Is there any advantage in using NTFS for something like this?
>> i.e. just one or two humongous files that grow with each
>> incremental backup...
>
> How about that you cannot have a single file size over 4GB unless you use
> NTFS?
>

Also NTFS is a more robust filing system than FAT32.

"Jeff Johnson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "(PeteCresswell)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> Just got a couple of external USB2 drives - 500 gigs each - to
>> which I plan to write database-type backups.
>>
>> They came formatted Fat32.
>>
>> Is there any advantage in using NTFS for something like this?
>> i.e. just one or two humongous files that grow with each
>> incremental backup...
>
> Extra data can be stored along with a file (such as what can be seen in
> the Summary tab of the Properties page*) in what is known as an Alternate
> Data Stream ("streams," for short). FAT32 does not support streams so they
> would be lost.
>
>
>
> *For any non-Office document, like a .TXT file. Office documents store
> this information inside their regular data.
>


Thanks to all who answered this for Jeff.
I hadn't had the sense to ask about this yet
I changed to NTFS quite a while ago .. but now I know why !