ReadyBoost and Vista Performance Revisited Other Vista Discussions Discuss ReadyBoost and Vista Performance Revisited in the Windows Vista forums; When I was looking through forums and such that Google directed me to, I kept running across people posting that FAT and FAT32 was faster on USB drives but nobody ...

[Midway]

When I was looking through forums and such that Google directed me to, I kept running across people posting that FAT and FAT32 was faster on USB drives but nobody posted the source of their info. Some people say that it doesn't matter what file system is used. So <shrug> I don't know what to believe.

[Znod]

You are welcome Snuffster.

[Znod]

No joy for ReadyBoost under FAT32

Without RB:
896.359
896.278
896.055
Avg 896.23

With RB--NTSF:
904.272
904.382
903.518
Avg 904.06

With RB-FAT32
901.225
901.18
901.859
Avg 901.42

[Snuffy]

Not as good as NTFS but better than no Boost at all.
I will format one to NTFS and start running to see .. on shutdown and startup. which for me is grossly better than NO Boost.

[Znod]

Cool. I like to see others test the same things.

[felix8406]

There are different versions of FAT or File Allocation Table; FAT12, FAT16, and FAT32. Back in 1987, when I first bought a PC, FAT could not read a hard drive larger than 32MB. FAT16 then was introduced and could read hard drives no larger than 2GB. FAT32 increases this limit to 2 terabytes. The biggest issue or drawback of FAT32 is that it saves information in fixed cluster, which creates a lot of wasted space on a hard drive. For example, the information in a PC with a FAT32 system is saved in fixed cluster of about 16KB per cluster for partitions between 16 and 32GB. If for example you were to save a 17KB file, it would require two clusters, one cluster will contain 16KB, while the other will contain just 1KB. The other 15KB on the second cluster will be empty space or ‘slack’. As a user install or save files, the more empty spaces are created. You may imagine the issue with new HD with 200GB or even larger capacities. If you were to completely fill up the HD, about 40% would be empty space.

But that’s not the only issue; if the HD is fragmented, every time an application is installed, the OS will install the application in unused clusters, which don’t have to be next to each other. This of course slows down the time it takes for the HD to retrieve the data.

The NTFS does not use fixed clusters as the FAT system does, but uses files instead, which can be modified, enlarged or move. For example, one FS is the Master File Table or MT. It contains information about all the files on the HD. If a file is less than 1KB, it will retain the file. If the file is larger than 1KB, NTFS will save the file in cluster, but the cluster will not exceed 4KB with a built in file compression to prevent issues with empty space.

The NTFS is also more secured than the FAT32 system. For example, any user with access to a drive using FAT32 will have has access to the files on that drive.

[Znod]

Thanks felix; it seems like what you say provides support for favoring NTFS for ReadyBoost.

[crabby]

If only Microsoft was open to new ideas! If it supported some of Linux's file systems it would be super speedy Like ReiserFS!

crabby