|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
The paper cited
(http://people.msoe.edu/~barnicks/courses/cs384/papers19992000/capriotj-CS38
4%20-%20Term%20Paper.pdf) is a good, brief, and mostly nontechnical review
of FAT32 vs. NTFS. It doesn't give specific performance comparisons, but it
does say "excellent" performance for NTFS on larger than 400MB partitions.
If you give the author the benefit of the doubt that his conclusions are
based on some uncited performance analysis, then I would have to guess that
NTFS is a better performer on modern-size disks. I tried to convert from
NTFS to FAT32 because of expected performance gains, and was ultimately
unsuccessful due to compressed file; but now, I am glad I stayed with NTFS.
Also, the benefit of striping multiple spindles for large file streaming
performance is good.
-----Original Message-----
From: M. Simms [mailto:prosys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 11:16 AM
To: Simon Campbell; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: File system - NTFS or FAT?
WELCOME TO THE "GREAT DEBATE"......
I say FAT32.
Why ? NTFS never proven (key word) to have higher performance than FAT32 for
applications using large datasets.
Yes it provides additional features, compression, security, etc, etc. and
yes it is more reliable.
But faster ?
Not for accessing and writing large files.
For <many> small files, yes....there is evidence that NTFS is faster (see
below...it's the only reference I could find with any semblance of a
performance comparison)
http://www.etestinglabs.com/main/reports/sghost.pdf
It shows that Ghost image creation and restoration slightly faster for NTFS
volumes vs. FAT32.
Remember: many small files involved in this operation.....
Below makes a nice case for NTFS.....but again, NO PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS.
http://people.msoe.edu/~barnicks/courses/cs384/papers19992000/capriotj-CS384
%20-%20Term%20Paper.pdf
http://faq.arstechnica.com/link.php?i=1227
If NTFS is so great performance-wise, why doesn't the MS Knowledgebase have
<any> references to NTFS vs FAT32 Performance ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Campbell [mailto:simtrader@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 2:12 PM
> To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: File system - NTFS or FAT?
>
>
> I'm building a new PC dedicated to running TS4. It'll just be running:
>
> Datafeed + Dynastore + TradeStation 4
>
> under Win2000 Pro. Nothing else will be on the machine.
>
> Should I use the NTFS file system or FAT?
>
> Rgds
> Simon
> PS. I'm looking to match Win2000 with an AMD Athlon XP CPU on this box.
> Anyone using this combo with TS4??? (problems or positive feedback
> appreciated!).
>
>
|