FAT32 Temp drive in an NTFS system?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RFodor
  • Start date Start date
R

RFodor

XP Pro, SP1 with all the critical updates (I'm afraid of how much time
I'm gonna have to waste to get my machine working if I install SP2):

I have one physical HD with 3 partitions: C:=System, D:=Data and
E:=Temp. C and D are NTFS. Is there any reason that the E drive
should NOT be a FAT32 drive? Everything that comes and goes on E is
temporary anyway, and the E drive is turne off in System Restore, so I
think I am gaining by not having the OS have to deal with the NTFS
overhead on the temp drive; hence, FAT32. Suggestions, comments,
warnings, please?

Thanks
 
You can quite safely mix FAT and NTFS partitions in WINXP if that is what
you want to do. In my case my external drive (usb-hdd) is formatted FAT32
to enable it to be easily moved to machines that have an OS that will not
read WINXP NTFS. I am unsure in your case what the advantages would be to
format a partition FAT32 unless you intend to network with another machine
that may not be able to read a NTFS partition. I don't think the NTFS
'overhead' you mention is significant to make any difference for practical
purposes.
 
No reason at all for a work disk or page file.
It is recommended to have the page file on a second disk for a little
performance gain but not on another partition on the same drive as you would
just be moving the read/write head back and forth increasing seek time.

If you are cramp for space because of the SP2 update then yeah, move the
page file and the temp settings to E:.

The main thing before SP2 besides cleaning all the junk on the computer is
to chkdsk /r the partition so remember to do that for D: and E:, too.

Finally you will need over a GB of free disk space for SP2 if using the full
download of 266 MB compressed file.
When you double click on that file it will expand into the temp or the
partition with the most free space (about 400 MB) so by putting the file
there on E: and expanding it there will space over half a GB on C:
You also need about 200 MB temp space for the SP2 installer (don't know if
that uses temp or C:) and 400 MB on C: for the uninstall backup of SP1.

If your disk is good and clean form junk and you have good drivers SP2 will
install smooth, take about 20-30 minutes, and on reboot you just take the
recommended setting as the screens come up until you get the feel for what
going on. (be sure to disconnect from the internet, disable AV, and stop any
3rd party FW before starting the SP2 install.
After just be patient and stay off line until you have the correct FW, AV,
setting up and running.

Finally, you will need to defrag the C: partition and reboot 2 or 3 times to
get things squared away.

GL, :)

SJ
 
RFodor said:
I have one physical HD with 3 partitions: C:=System, D:=Data and
E:=Temp. C and D are NTFS. Is there any reason that the E drive
should NOT be a FAT32 drive? Everything that comes and goes on E is
temporary anyway, and the E drive is turne off in System Restore, so I
think I am gaining by not having the OS have to deal with the NTFS
overhead on the temp drive; hence, FAT32.
Click to expand...

No particular reason to convert the drive, other than cluster size.
System restore BTW (though certainly have it off in a data drive like
this) is quite unrelated to use of NTFS.

Up to an 8GB size FAT 32 will use 4K clusters, like NTFS; above that it
goes up, and can be wasteful of space especially with Temporary
Internet Files on the drive. But for a TEMP one that is probably a
bigger partition than you want anyway
 
In
RFodor said:
I have one physical HD with 3 partitions: C:=System, D:=Data
and
E:=Temp. C and D are NTFS. Is there any reason that the E
drive
should NOT be a FAT32 drive? Everything that comes and goes on
E is
temporary anyway, and the E drive is turne off in System
Restore, so I
think I am gaining by not having the OS have to deal with the
NTFS
overhead on the temp drive; hence, FAT32. Suggestions,
comments,
warnings, please?
Click to expand...


I don't think you gain anything by having it FAT32, but I don't
think you lose a lot either. I doubt if it matters much either
way.

What do you mean by E:=temp? Do you have just the temp folder
there? How big is this partition? Why have you separated the temp
folder from the other drives? There's no real advantage to doing
this. It just puts it farther from the other frequently-used
files on the drive and may hurt your performance slightly.
 
Alex, I have a separate external firewire 120GB HD that is NTFS, and
it has all kinds of problems. It seems to constantly need a chkdsk /f
or chkdsk /r, and when I run chkdsk on it, all kinds of files
conveniently get "thrown away" during the chkdsk. By this I mean that
files that I used to have are now gone after the chkdsk. I don't know
how NTFS works; all I know is that when I see the chkdsk NTFS error
messages whizzing by the screen during the chkdsk, I know I'm gonna
have files disappear. ANNOYING AS HELL!

The point is that I'm not sure I trust NTFS, what with the additional
overhead such as indexing, additional files properties, etc. SO, why
bother with NTFS on a drive that is strictly a temporary drive
(~2.5GB)?

BTW, it formats with 1k clusters. I always thought, too, that it had
to be 4k, but it works fine with a 1k size. What's up with that?

Which raises another couple of questions, please: All my NTFS drives
are formatted with a 512 byte sector size. I figured that this would
waste the smallest amount of drive space. I couldn't find
"recommended" size - and WHY - info anywhere. Should I have used a
different size? Is there a non-volatile utility that will change the
sector size, if necessary for, say, greater performance?

Thanks again for your help!

P.S.: I think I misunderstood something you said, so I ask (with a bit
of explanation): I have system restore on my C:SYSTEM drive, of
course, and I don't have system restore on the E:TEMP drive because
it's all temp/junk anyway. However, all my data, including my
userprofile, is on D:DATA (D:\Documents and Settings\{username}}, on
which I also have system restore turned on. (The idea behind setting
up my partitions this way - after a MAJOR disruption and HUGE loss of
data after using Symantec's (sold to them by Roxio) "GoBack" product
[DANGER DANGER DANGER!], was so I could restore a system drive (C:)
that crashes and burns, but all my data would remain safe on D:DATA
(or on my backup). I actually had this happen, and all I had to do
was restore just C:SYSTEM from the backup; the data remained safe on
D:. SO, I should or I should not have system restore turned on for
D:DATA? And it should be off for the E:TEMP drive, right?

Your comment, "...certainly have it off in a data drive like
this..." confuses me. Doesn't system restore "backup" stuff from the
userprofile directory, too?

Thanks once more.


On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:34:23 +0100, Alex Nichol
No particular reason to convert the drive, other than cluster size.
System restore BTW (though certainly have it off in a data drive like
this) is quite unrelated to use of NTFS.

Up to an 8GB size FAT 32 will use 4K clusters, like NTFS; above that
it goes up, and can be wasteful of space especially with Temporary
Internet Files on the drive. But for a TEMP one that is probably a
bigger partition than you want anyway
 
Ken, the E: partition on the single HD is 2.5GB and used only for
temporary files. I have my XP pagefile there (~1.5GB for a 512Mb
memory machine) (I don't remember where I came up with this 1.5gb
figure as the size I should use for the pagefile, which is a constant
size, not one of those ones that grows and shrinks; somewhere such as
XP Annoyances, or something like that), my \TEMP dir and the
\Temporary Internet Files dir there. That's it. The idea was to
separate system files such as the OS and installed programs (of which
I have quite a few) on the C: drive, named SYSTEM (C:SYSTEM in other
words), from the data files on D:DATA from the temporary/junk/throw
away stuff on E:TEMP. I changed all this after having used the
incredibly dangerous "GoBack" product: an upgrade completely trashed
my entire drive! Hence, I subsequently use a different philosophy
designed to ensure data safety. Since then, I've had a physical drive
head crash on the C: partition, forcing me to buy a new HD. I had to
rebuild C:, but getting the data back was a snap! (THANK GOD, after
that Roxio GoBack debacle!)

The additional purpose of having a separate TEMP drive is so that all
the writing/deleting/overwriting of junk/temp files wouldn't
defragment the C: drive (if I were to have my temp junk there) which
has the system/OS/program files on it (or the D:DATA partition, for
that matter). It seems to have been helpful. Yeah, I lose a little
performance, but it's a HELLUVA lot easier to restore. At least it
was a helluva lot easier to restore than the NIGHTMARE I had after
doing that "GoBack" product upgrade. (I'm still shaking, and that was
two years ago.)

(And to think that Roxio KNEW that this would happen to some people.
It's a long story, but I spent two days on the phone, 10 hours each
day, with Roxio's "GoBack" product Quality Engineering Project Lead
trying to get to the bottom of how their upgrade f*#&ed up my HD and
how to undo it. Nothing ever worked, and it was a MAJOR disaster for
me. The REAL screwup was that something in their software ALSO
screwed up and destroyed my backup files (on a separate external HD)
when I accessed them!!!!! She admitted all kinds of interesting
things to me about inside their operation! The upgrade sucked, and
they knew it, but greed ruled the day! (At least I got my purchase
price refunded, but that didn't cover my data loss or the time to
rebuild.) Maybe that's why they dumped the product off to Symantec:
"Let *them* figure it out." Funny thing is that when "GoBack" worked
- before the upgrade - it worked excellently. I still like the idea
behind this product, but now I'm scared to DEATH of it!)

What's that phrase?: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame
on me!"
 
In
RFodor said:
Ken, the E: partition on the single HD is 2.5GB and used only
for
temporary files. I have my XP pagefile there
Click to expand...


Despite the number of times you see people recommend this,
putting the pagefile on a second hard drive *hurts* performance,
instead of helping it. What you've done is move the page file to
a location on the hard drive distant from the other
frequently-used data on the drive. That increases the time for
head movement to and from it (the slowest aspect of using a hard
drive) and slows you down.


Putting the swap file on a second *physical* drive is a good
idea, since it decreases head movement, but not to a secod
partition on a single drive. A good rule of thumb is that the
page file should be on the most-used partition of the least-used
physical drive. For almost everyone with a single drive, that's
C:.

(~1.5GB for a 512Mb
memory machine) (I don't remember where I came up with this
1.5gb
figure as the size I should use for the pagefile, which is a
constant
size, not one of those ones that grows and shrinks;
Click to expand...


If your RAM is 512MB, 1.5GB is very likely much more than you
need. The more RAM you have, the less page file you need.
Moreover, having it a constant size is not beneficial. Having the
minimum at a size beyond which it is unlikely to grow, with a
large maximum, provides all the benefits of a fixed size.

Read MVP Alex Nichol's article here:
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

somewhere such as
XP Annoyances, or something like that), my \TEMP dir and the
\Temporary Internet Files dir there. That's it. The idea was
to
separate system files such as the OS and installed programs (of
which
I have quite a few) on the C: drive, named SYSTEM (C:SYSTEM in
other
words), from the data files on D:DATA from the
temporary/junk/throw
away stuff on E:TEMP. I changed all this after having used the
incredibly dangerous "GoBack" product: an upgrade completely
trashed
my entire drive! Hence, I subsequently use a different
philosophy
designed to ensure data safety. Since then, I've had a
physical drive
head crash on the C: partition, forcing me to buy a new HD. I
had to
rebuild C:, but getting the data back was a snap! (THANK GOD,
after
that Roxio GoBack debacle!
Click to expand...


As far as I'm concerned, the way to ensure you can get your data
back in a catastrophe is to put a reliable backup procedure in
place. Your partitioning scheme is a*not* an adequate substitute
for backup.

Having your data in a partition separate from the operating
system protects you only *slightly* more than having it mixed in
with it. Your data is still vulnerable to most of the serious
dangers that threaten it. A hard drive crash, user error, nearby
lightning strike, virus attack, even theft of the computer, can
cause the loss of everything on your drive. As has often been
said, it's not a matter of whether you will have such a problem,
but when.

If you were able to recover your data after a head crash,
consider yourself extremely fortunate. Do not rely on this.
 
RFodor said:
Alex, I have a separate external firewire 120GB HD that is NTFS, and
it has all kinds of problems. It seems to constantly need a chkdsk /f
or chkdsk /r, and when I run chkdsk on it, all kinds of files
conveniently get "thrown away" during the chkdsk. By this I mean that
files that I used to have are now gone after the chkdsk. I don't know
how NTFS works; all I know is that when I see the chkdsk NTFS error
messages whizzing by the screen during the chkdsk, I know I'm gonna
have files disappear. ANNOYING AS HELL!

The point is that I'm not sure I trust NTFS, what with the additional
overhead such as indexing, additional files properties, etc. SO, why
bother with NTFS on a drive that is strictly a temporary drive
(~2.5GB)?

BTW, it formats with 1k clusters. I always thought, too, that it had
to be 4k,
Click to expand...

There is I think something weird with either the hardware of that drive
or the way it got set up. It ought *not* to be getting those troubles
if it is OK and as a first step I would get a makers diagnostic to run
on it - and possibly then take it to a repair shop for assessment.
Whatever set up the drive is distinctly unusual; any normal formatting
to NTFS direct under XP should give 4 K clusters for a drive that size;
conversion from FAT 32 very often gives 512 byte. 4K is optimal as it
matches the internal memory management page of the Intel architecture
CPUs, hence removing a lot of need for buffering transfers to/from the
disk.
 
Dear Alex, hi, i really would like to ask your expert help after visiting
your hard drive website. can you help? i posted this today 3/13/2005 after
having trouble
trying to copy a 10Gigabyte file to a new external harddrive from my XP box.
thank you so much! rich, (e-mail address removed)
hi, can an expert tell me how or if an external hard drive can be converted
from FAT32 to NTFS under Windows XP PRO+SP1,2? My XP box has a new Maxtor
3100 external drive attached which DiskDefrag shows to be FAT32 partitioned,
(4Gigabyte file size limit).
convert H: /FS:NTFS
in a cmd DOS window, gives the error message "invalid drive specification."
Is it possible to convert an external hard drive from FAT32 to NTFS? How?
Rich, Washington, DC, USA, (e-mail address removed)
 
Sorry, I am in a dream.

Open Disk Management
Type "diskmgmt.msc" into the run box
Format the drive, select NTFS

Make sure you don't have any data on it you want to keep.
 
Rich said:
Dear Alex, hi, i really would like to ask your expert help after
visiting
your hard drive website. can you help? i posted this today 3/13/2005
after having trouble
trying to copy a 10Gigabyte file to a new external harddrive from my
XP box.
thank you so much! rich, (e-mail address removed)
hi, can an expert tell me how or if an external hard drive can be
converted
from FAT32 to NTFS under Windows XP PRO+SP1,2? My XP box has a new
Maxtor 3100 external drive attached which DiskDefrag shows to be FAT32
partitioned, (4Gigabyte file size limit).
convert H: /FS:NTFS
in a cmd DOS window, gives the error message "invalid drive
specification."
Is it possible to convert an external hard drive from FAT32 to NTFS?
How? Rich, Washington, DC, USA, (e-mail address removed)
Click to expand...

OK, you've posted this three times. Once is sufficient. What does your
manual for the Maxtor say? What about tech support on Maxtor's website?
It is my understanding that some external drives can be formatted NTFS
and some can't. Find out about yours from the manufacturer.

Malke
 
My Maxtor is currently NTFS but I formatted it.
Perhaps it just doesn't support converting via the USB.
I will test it, but later as it's 1:30 am here

Regards
Mark Dormer
 
sorry! i asked for MVP help after the general posting. Alex's website was
especially helpful. Maxtor's product documentation said nothing about FAT32
vs. NTFS. I did not get definitive info from their website but it was
suggested either is possible (at other websites). Once more, sorry! Richard
Chiang Pan, Washington, DC, USA, (e-mail address removed) (my tremendous regret to learn
of Alex's loss.)
 
Mark said:
My Maxtor is currently NTFS but I formatted it.
Perhaps it just doesn't support converting via the USB.
I will test it, but later as it's 1:30 am here
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information, Mark. I admit it - I haven't bought an
external hard drive. I have so many computers here with multiple hard
drives in each one (blush) that it just hasn't been necessary. I just
remember reading somewhere - Maximum PC maybe? - that some externals
couldn't be formatted NTFS.

Malke
 
Back
Top