![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ntfsmount is a part of ntfsprogs. Why don't we replace "ntfsmount" with "ntfsprogs"?. There is also other programs in the ntfsprogs project. For instance, there is ntfsresize. -- Ysangkok 20:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
What is Difference between NTFS & FAT32.. does it effects the speed for those who use heavy video conversions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.99.255.26 ( talk) 12:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
ALSO fat32 cant handle single files over a certain size (4gb?) whereas NTFS can handle much bigger files. so if you are handling huge video files , NTFS is better. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.16.160.17 (
talk) 10:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There is/was a sentence which reads: "NTFS for Linux: Full write support is available using Paragon's NTFS for Linux driver, although criticised for leaving many errors on the volume when mounted read-write.[citation needed]" And naturally enough someone requested a citation. I've looked around and could not quickly (5 min) find any supporting evidence for criticising the driver for leaving many errors. On the contrary I found an article [ 'In the Window' (166KB PDF] from http://www.linux-magazine.com dated January 2007 in which they praise the driver and it's documentation and utilities, though questioning the price. So I am going to remove the critical part of that paragraph. If this decision is wrong please provide at least one well-informed citation before reverting. -- Duncan nz 10:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
In what sense did it have 5 versions, if 1 and 1.1 were never released, and are not discussed? Or why not 6 versions, wasn't there an equally undistinguished version 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 ( talk • contribs) 11:36, June 10, 2007
can someone explain how macFUSE would help me write from my macbook pro (intel chip) to my NTFS external? I saw that as an option somewhere but I don't see "macFUSE" listed any where in the article after doing cmd+f for "macfuse." Thanks.
Tkjazzer 03:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Should that statement be ore specific? I'm not sure if NTFS replaced FAT16 entirely or the FAT format. NTFS is only used in Windows NT. I will look into that. A Raider Like Indiana 19:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
NTFS replaced FAT as the default filesystem in Windows. But not in general. XP wont even let you format an USB stick in NTFS (but only FAT). -- Xerces8 09:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The compression is not transparent as said in the already used reference nr 16 MS KB 251186 :
Programs such as Microsoft Message Queuing (also known as MSMQ) do not work with NTFS compression.
Also see this VMware forum thread VMware eats up disk space, chkdsk needed
-- Xerces8 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to format a USB flash drive with NTFS? If so, how? Stayman Apple ( talk) 20:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about NTFS but I'm sure that the last entry in the metafiles table is incorrect "pagefile.sys beginning of file entries." pagefile.sys is the virtual memory swap file. Kahurangikea ( talk) 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Which file names are different: 1. FILENAME.txt; 2. FİLENAME.txt;3:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
2008-02-06 11:58 5 FILENAME.txt 2008-02-06 11:58 5 FILENAME.txt 2008-02-06 11:59 5 Filename.txt 3 File(s) 15 bytes
Which file names are different under the Turkish version of Windows XP? -- 88.78.6.67 ( talk) 15:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
after reading this article, the article on fat32 seems outdated. Am I correct about this? If so, an update is desperately needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.221.52.69 ( talk • contribs) 11:37, March 17, 2008
A revert just occurred which removed a nicely cited assertion of the directory structure using B-trees. I remember reading the article when it said B+ trees and didn't think anything about it. Now that I've actually read the tree articles, I can confirm that NTFS actually uses the former. If a parent node lists a file, that filename will not (re)appear in its children. Perhaps it changed along the way? Highly unlikely methinks. — EncMstr 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Just leave it as a B+ tree. Most articles about NTFS say ntfs uses B+ trees and a B+ tree is just a specialized version of a b-tree.--
Thunderpenguin (
talk) 21:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
it says b-trees on the offical microsoft website and they did create ntfs so leave it as b-tree.-- 24.218.246.100 ( talk) 00:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
So what should we do then? There is a link to b-trees and B+ trees. Maybe reading the source code of ntfs3g will help?-- Thunderpenguin ( talk) 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
d.new
, h.txt
and i.doc
are records. They could very well be keys for a certain record block. Consider a scenario where these files existed as records, then this structure is a valid B+ tree. Now, when those files got deleted, there is no need to delete the keys that referred to those files. B+ tree by definition allows keys to be present which are not part of the record. So, even in that case, the diagram is a valid B+ tree. --
soum
talk 05:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)and reading the ntfs-3g source code it says b+ trees.-- Thunderpenguin ( talk) 23:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
is a logfile the same thing as a journal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderpenguin ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Does this file system have union folders? If I turn on hidden files I can see two files of the same name on my desktop. On most file systems it is not possible to have two files with same name in same location. Does this mean NTFS has union folders like in Plan 9?
Bryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.204.254 ( talk) 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft introduced Transactional NTFS with Vista / Windows Server 2008, but "fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo <drive>" shows the same version?! 85.178.82.64 ( talk) 08:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
What about symbolic links wouldnt that require on disk change?-- 71.192.251.246 ( talk) 16:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The article incorrectly states that Vista cannot move or defragment the MFT, hurting the ability to shrink the volume. This is incorrect -- the FSCTL defrag interface has supported defragging and moving the MFT since XP, and indeed the shrinking mechanism will make use of this. What can't be moved, because this is an "online" mechanism, is page file fragments and files that have been marked as "unmovable", again with a special FSCTL. An offline shrink with a 3rd-party tool would solve this, as would defragmenting the page file offline, in most cases. The website originally sourced is incorrect, because the tool they use assumes all unmovable files are MFT fragments (you can see that in the screenshot). The author then went on to assume that MFT fragments are the cause of the problem. A better defragmentation tool and disk analysis tool would reveal otherwise. Ionescu007 ( talk) 17:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
On the original Article it is commented
"< !-- does not stand for New Technology File System: see the talk page. -- >"
I emailed [email protected] which I found on http://www.ntfs.com/quest21.htm
From: **********@******.com
Sent: October-17-08 8:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: NTFS Suggestion
It is not listed on the FAQ Located at ( http://www.ntfs.com/quest21.htm), I am interested to find out what does NTFS stand for?
The response I got is as follows
Hello:
New Technology File System.
Regards,
Sales Team
LSoft Technologies, Inc.
www.lsoft.net
-- 205.231.130.2 ( talk) 15:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
98.242.244.0 ( talk) 21:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I studied at one of the original Microsoft Academic Technical Education Centers, a very prestigious college, in 1998, for NT Server 4.0, we were taught at that time that NTFS, in fact, was an acronym for "New Technology File System". This was the original expansion of the acronym. Just as DOS meant "Disk Operating System". I don't care if Bill Gates himself wants to say nowadays that DOS no longer means "Disk Operating System" or if he no longer wants to admit that the original name of NTFS was "New Technology File System", it does not take away the fact that this was the original name and as such it should be included in the main article strictly for historical accuracy. Another example is the former-planet Pluto, which for all of our lives we all knew to be the 9th planet. Now they no longer want to consider it a true "planet", OK, fine, I'm sure they have their reasons, but for the sake of historical accuracy wherever there is a listing of the 8 planets, there should always remain an asterisk 9th bullet mentioning Pluto as being well known for a very long time as being a planet. Let's not rewrite history or dilute the record here, the fact is that NTFS was originally an acronym for "New Technology File System" and however this needs to be worded so it can appear on the main page, then someone please do so.
129.174.191.249 ( talk) 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Modern textbooks continue to refer to NTFS as New Technology File System, so it would seem that it is still understood that the acronym represents that phrase in the field. I think it would be appropriate for at least some note, perhaps historically, to be introduced into the article.
One major problem with NTFS is that when a folder or file gets corrupted, like with a bad Internet Explorer crash (I've seen corrupted files several times in Temporary Internet Files) or some program blows up while writing to a file, there is no way I've been able to find to delete that corrupted file or folder. Windows just says it's corrupted and un-readable and won't allow anything to touch it. CHKDSK ignores them, claiming everything is 100% perfectly fine.
This is completely BACKWARDS behaviour! Corrupted files are BAD. They're USELESS. Unless you have the resources of a computer forensics lab, you're not going to get anything useful out of them even if Windows would allow the user to access them. The proper action from Windows ought to be "This file or folder is corrupted and unreadable. Do you want to delete it and recover the space?"
With prior versions of Windows and DOS running on FAT16 or FAT32, SCANDISK would 'recover' such files to useless .chk files and delete any parts it couldn't make sense of. PROBLEM SOLVED. Windows on NTFS protects corrupted files like a mother grizzly bear guarding her cubs.
Microsoft knows *everything* about how NTFS works, why haven't they provided a utility (or built into Windows) to fix this problem? Fifteen years of NTFS and it still has this problem, with no way short of reformatting the drive to fix it.
Right now I have a client's PC with XP Home that has a corrupted folder in Temporary Internet Files. It prevents the volume dirty bit from being un-set during shutdown, which causes CHKDSK to run every boot. CHKDSK reports the volume is dirty, then finds NOTHING WRONG. That user account cannot be deleted because this one folder cannot be deleted. I've tried the safe mode command prompt Administrator login to run CHKDSK /F, that doesn't do anything. I've tried it from the DaRT 5.0 CD, both connected and not to the Windows install, no luck with that either. I've also tried several utilities that are supposed to be able to forcibly delete files and folders Windows is falsely claiming are "open" or that the user "doesn't have permission" to access. None of those work.
If I had the big $$$, I'd fly to Redmond with this PC and pay Microsoft to gather their top NTFS experts together to create a utility to fix this problem- which they already should've done years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.183.250 ( talk) 01:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Chkdsk does not check for file corruptions such as the physical data. It only checks to make sure the filesystem metadata is in tact like the master file table and folders.-- Thunderpenguin ( talk) 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Just use a Linux LiveCD to delete the file. Simple. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 18:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
In theory, the maximum NTFS volume size is 264-1 clusters. However, the maximum NTFS volume size as implemented in Windows XP Professional is 232-1 clusters. For example, using 64 kB clusters, the maximum NTFS volume size is 256 TB minus 64 kB. Using the default cluster size of 4 kB, the maximum NTFS volume size is 16 TB minus 4 kB. (Both of these are vastly higher than the 128 GB limit lifted in Windows XP SP1.) Because partition tables on master boot record (MBR) disks only support partition sizes up to 2 TB, dynamic or GPT volumes must be used to create bootable NTFS volumes over 2 TB. -- IceHunter ( talk) 04:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
A well-intentioned editor replaced the MiBs, GiBs, etc. in this article with MB, GB, etc. citing WP:MOSNUM. However, this makes the facts of the article incorrect since powers of two truly are the proper numbers for the various limitations and structures. It's time that MOSNUM be fixed to allow for this. — EncMstr ( talk) 03:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Recent edit added Linux, etc. Since none of those look-alike implementations provide any warranty, etc., which is associated with "support", this doesn't seem to be topical. Tedickey ( talk) 09:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This article has to mention that NTFS implements many concepts of the Files-11 filesystem (read the article), which is its conceptual predcessor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.141.154.11 ( talk) 08:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I use Linux as my main OS and use the NTFS-3G-driver to read and write NTFS-formatted partitions when I need to. When I create a folder ending with a . (dot) in Linux, which works fine, a computer running windows won't open them (tested with Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Vista). I don't see that limitation in the article. Can someone please confirm this and add it to the article? -- 79.212.138.66 ( talk) 12:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365247.aspx#maxpath
I decided to check the referenced source http://data.linux-ntfs.org/ntfsdoc.html.gz , but it is not available now. 83.246.135.19 ( talk) 13:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)