|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
When the file system has more than 40% free space available, you get a lot
better file access times than if you fill it.
Using a 4 GByte disk, you might have quite a full disk, which would be
reducing performance. This would be even more true if you switch to NTFS.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Cheatham [mailto:nchrisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 8:28 PM
> To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: off topic: NT partition types
>
>
> I recently switched from win98 2nd ed. with Windows optimized
> FAT32 to NT4
> SP5 for TS4. Everything is great except disk access is very
> slow -- pages
> take much longer to load. I am wondering if it has something
> to do with
> partition types -- curious what others feel are the most efficient.
> Currently have NT and TS on a 4 gig FAT16 partition (64 K
> clusters) IDE.
> Not interested in switching to SCSI -- just looking to get
> closer to what I
> had before. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on any of
> the following?
>
> 1. Would going to smaller partitions with smaller clusters
> increase speed?
>
> 2. Would putting TS on a FAT32 partition (using the
> Winternals FAT32 driver)
> increase speed?
> 2a. Could the FAT32 driver be slowing things down?
>
> 3. Is NTFS faster than FAT16 -- I have heard conflicting reports?
>
> 4. Would there be any significant speed increase by putting
> TS on a similar
> 2nd physical drive?
>
> 5. Running all partitions as FAT32 except for NT seems a
> logical choice,
> except that you cannot defrag the FAT32 partitions without
> going into 95/98.
> Anyone know of a way to defrag a FAT32 disk from a DOS floppy
> or someway
> without having a whole OS just for that purpose?
> 5a. Any recommendations for NT defrag utilities in general?
>
> I realize a this issue goes away with NT2000, but I figure
> they need 6-12 mo
> for others to find the bugs before I jump in. Any advice would be
> appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Cheatham
> (reply to nchrisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>
>
>
|