|
Home > Archive > 70-068 enterprise > January 2001 > is FAT fatter??
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| one particular demo question i have tried suggested in a particular senario that FAT partition(as compared to a NTFS partition) was more "optimal"....with regards to server speed...
any thoughts you clever people???? | |
|
| Usually FAT is quicker and more efficient with drives 50MB or smaller. And NTFS is better will drives 400MB or larger.
This has to do with file system and directory structure overhead. FAT is more compact and carries a lower overhead. NTFS more complex, higher overhead, which is one of the reasons you can not format a floppy NTFS, the overhead takes up too much storage space.
I think Microsoft recommends using FAT on 50MB or smaller drives. I might be wrong on that though.
Hope this Helps!
Spid
Net+, MCSE |
|
|
|
|