win2000 proff problem

am instalat recent win2000proffesional, in special pt. utilitatea sa de a gazdui mai multi utilizatori pe acelasi calculator iar administratorul poate inpune regulile sale de acces.
Am creat doua noi conturi intr-un grup creat tot de mine.
Problema este urmatoarea: incerc sa blochez accesul spre un anumit director, si desi am configurat regulile de shere-uire pt cei doi utilizatori( deny) , nu reusesc acest lucru; ceilalti il vad ca si cum totul ar fi ok

Astept un sfat.  Multumesc

Partitia este formatata NTFS ?

EP

nu a ramas fat32. Asta-i problema?

Da. Ca sa poti face directoare criptate sau sa dai drepturi de acces pe fiecare director trebuie sa ai NTFS. Fat32 nu suporta asa ceva.

EP

multam fine

ce alte avantaje mai are NTFS.? creste si viteza de acces la date?

E mai sigur si mai "protejat la erori". Nu-ti mai face scandisk (chkdsk) daca nu ai dat shutdown cum trebuie.

Quote

Binenteles ca OS-ul face , daca este cazul, fara nici o legatura cu sistemul de fisiere.

Uite AICI un articol destul de complet despre beneficiile NTFS-ului

EP

Faza era ca daca ai fat32 si nu dai shutdown(spre exemplu dai reset) face oricum scandisk. La NTFS am dat reset si nu a mai facut. Binneteles ca mai face, dar nu in toate cazurile.

Intrebare pentru cei care au NTFS :: cum se impaca cu jocurile si in general cu programele pe care la folosesti acasa?

Este "transparent" din p.d.v al aplicatiilor, desi am citi pe undeva ca exista aplicatii care nu suporta.

EP

mai cezarica ia ceteste acilea :

What file system is more efficient, FAT32 or NT file system(NTFS)? Specifically, is FAT32 forty percent more efficient than FAT? I know that for large volumes, NTFS is the only way to go, but what about on smaller volumes? I am also aware of the perks of NTFS (security, file system recovery, etc), but I would like to know which file system is more efficient. Can you help?  
This question posed on 26 February 2001  


The answer all depends on your definition of "efficient." Do you mean which performs faster or which consumes the least disk space and memory for a given partition size?

Let's start with disk space and memory. A file system makes the most efficient use of a disk by having the smallest cluster size. This minimizes the wasted space at the end of each file.

NTFS is a 64-bit file system, so it can support many more clusters than FAT32. This means each cluster can be smaller, making more efficient use of the partition. It's possible with NTFS to format a 300GB partition with 512-byte clusters. This isn't advisable, though, because the file system would need to contend with many more LCNs (Logical Cluster Numbers), which would slow it down and consume more memory.

NTFS is a true database, not a cluster map, so it takes up more room on disk and in memory than FAT32 for small partitions. NTFS would consume 7-10M bytes of a 50M byte partition if it holds lots of files and directories. But in today's computing environment, 50M bytes is scarcely a functional partition. Heck, it's barely enough for a Word document header. For realistic partition sizes of 2G bytes or more, NTFS will consume less disk space and memory than FAT32.

As far as performance, FAT32 can outperform NTFS on small partitions as long as you defragment frequently. (By small, I mean 500M bytes or less.) The FASTFAT driver in Windows 2000/NT keeps the FAT32 cluster map in memory. This improves raw lookup times. But many applications, especially databases, don't just open a file and read the whole thing. They do random access to a particular byte to find a record. NTFS performs this kind of random access more efficiently. And NTFS resists the effects of fragmentation much better than FAT32. Sure, you have to defrag an NTFS partition every once in a while, but nothing like you would need to do with a FAT32 partition.

So, for small partitions and light file loads you might get marginally better performance out of FAT32. In production, though, the performance improvement is far outweighed by the stability of NTFS.

Based on raw speed numbers, FAT32 probably has the performance edge.

si mai gasesti multe altele !!!

hai pa !!



sa fitzi iubitzi