fat32 sau ntfs

b. nu se "farimiteaza/fragmented" asa de usor precum FAT32

NTFS and fragmentation

Before I fall  into the typical blog trap of talking about my random ire of the day  (night?), I should say something related to Virtualdub. Generally, hard  drive partitions that are formatted with NTFS have slightly slower  write performance than partitions formatted with the FAT32 file system.  If you are doing video capture, or similar manipulation of video files  that requires high disk bandwidth, consider using FAT32 instead of  NTFS, especially for temporary files for which it isn't a big deal if  they are lost in a system failure (if your video capture is  interrupted, you're not likely to need the partial file anyway).  Okay, now for ire.

  It's fairly well known that the NT file system (NTFS) is very bad at  avoiding fragmentation, partly due to its allocation strategy of  intentionally placing tiny gaps between files — which is good if those  files expand, but bad if they don't. Today, I see this in a  fragmentation analysis report of my hard drive:

  

Fragments   File Size   Name
      111       444KB   WINDOWS\$NtServicePackUninstall$

  The cluster size of the hard drive partition is 4K. This means that  NTFS has successfully managed to create a huge directory in which not a single pair of clusters are sequential. I used to think that the Amiga standard file system was bad, but this takes the cake.

Si chiar nu ar trebui sa fii atat de sigur pe tine...Esti chiar asa sigur pe cele afirmate mai sus?De unde sti tu?

Iti recomand fat32. Ai avantajul de a putea porni calculatorul in MS-DOS, cu o discheta de boot de win98, in cazul in care ai vreun incident neplacut.

Iti recomand fat32. Ai avantajul de a putea porni calculatorul in MS-DOS, cu o discheta de boot de win98, in cazul in care ai vreun incident neplacut.

Eu recomand NTFS, in caz ca ti se ia curentu' eu stiu ca cu FAT32 ai probleme, cu ntfs insa nimic