RAM Based EWF and NTFS

[Andy Bridge]

Sometime ago I came to the conclusion that if I was protecting a partition
with RAM based EWF it was better to have the partition formatted as FAT
rather than NTFS. If I used NTFS I found that my system RAM gradually got
consumed by EWF, this did not happen if I used FAT. Is this a correct
assumption or do others have different experiences/opinions?

Andy

 

[Heidi Linda]

Were you turning off the auto-defragment?
I've just run into some problems because I'd forgotten to
do this on my builds.

 

[Anil Ingle]

NTFS is much more chattier than FAT with the storage stack. NTFS makes log
files/checkpoints etc and writes a lot more to your storage than FAT. Your
experience is probably typical.. you are much better off using FAT than NTFS
in this scenario.
Anil [MS]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Andy Bridge]

Auto-defrag was definitely off.

Were you turning off the auto-defragment?
I've just run into some problems because I'd forgotten to
do this on my builds.

 

[Andy Bridge]

Thanks for that Anil.

NTFS is much more chattier than FAT with the storage stack. NTFS makes log
files/checkpoints etc and writes a lot more to your storage than FAT. Your
experience is probably typical.. you are much better off using FAT than NTFS
in this scenario.
Anil [MS]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Were you turning off the auto-defragment?
I've just run into some problems because I'd forgotten to
do this on my builds.