|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Chris,
You never mentioned how much memory you had...The more you have the better
NT likes it (This is especially true with the upcoming Win2k) If you have
<64mb then stick with win98. I have no experience with using the fat32
driver so I'm no help there. NTFS is faster if you have enough memory...it
has to do with the way NT does its cache algorithm. Also if you have no dos
programs that you run, you can turn off NT's generation of short file names
in the registry. A faster disk will always help...I really like the IBM
7200rpm series, very fast and very quiet. As for defrag the most popular is
diskeeper v5, which is what I use but it has one little quirk. On the root
of your drives it creates (at least this is the program I think creates it)
a file called pad.esi which can grow to about 25mb or so. Does no harm to
delete. And it can defrag the win98 volumes as well.
Hope this helps,
Mike Lange
>
> 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)
>
>
>
|