I have a 500Gb external hard drive that I use mainly for file storage. This involves frequent transfer of files from my PC to the external HD and sometimes also deletion and copy/paste of files from the ext.HD to the PC drive. Should I format the external drive with the FAT32 file system? (it currently has NTFS). The reason for my concern is the following post I read in this forum:

"i would suggest keeping a Fat32 file system if you plan on transferring alot of data back and forth
there is a critical Flaw in the NTFs volume bitmap which causes freespace to be reporting within the MFT and the MFT reserved space (MFT = Master File Table)
(Volume bitmap is what tells the drive where all the freespace lies)
this is becoz transfering alot of small and large files over at once causes it to become confused and it damages the drive
i had to format back to Fat32 after restoring all my data to NTFS
luckily i was able to salvage my data"

This sounds kinda strange... I would recommend NTFS because it makes searching and browsing the drive a lot quicker (because of the MTF). Just make sure you defrag your drive sometimes to improve performance (I use PerfectDisk 7.0)

MArkus, speaking about external drive maintenance, there are two tasks I usually do:
- Defragmenting (I use diskeeper)
- Scandisk (I use the regular WinXP CHMDSK) to check/fix any file inconsistencies.
Problem with scandisk is that I can't run it because when the PC reboots scandisk does not seem to detect the external USB2 HD. This is strange because in a previous WinXP installation I had in the same PC I was able to run scandisk on the external drive, so it must be a software issue. Any ideas?

If you're running WinXP's ScanDisk, ensure that nothing is using the drive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alegator
I have a 500Gb external hard drive that I use mainly for file storage. This involves frequent transfer of files from my PC to the external HD and sometimes also deletion and copy/paste of files from the ext.HD to the PC drive. Should I format the external drive with the FAT32 file system? (it currently has NTFS).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alegator
The reason for my concern is the following post I read in this forum:

"i would suggest keeping a Fat32 file system if you plan on transferring alot of data back and forth
there is a critical Flaw in the NTFs volume bitmap which causes freespace to be reporting within the MFT and the MFT reserved space (MFT = Master File Table)
(Volume bitmap is what tells the drive where all the freespace lies)
this is becoz transfering alot of small and large files over at once causes it to become confused and it damages the drive
i had to format back to Fat32 after restoring all my data to NTFS
luckily i was able to salvage my data"

---

FAT32 was used be the format use of smaller harddrives, harddrives for non-heavy use. If you wil have a lots of files on your disk and you wil heavy use is, fat32 is not the way to go. Also it crashes easier and crashes on fat32 can leave permanent cluster errors. A new harddisk is always in FAT32 because is a blank option then: if the users wants NTFS (more likely) you can convert it. But you can't convert NTFS to FAT32 easy again without messing. That's why they sell it FAT32 for users who do might want it, for what reason that might be...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Exca
That only depends on 1 thing: Are you planning to use the external drive also on system which doesn't support NTFS (like win98)? Although, when you do format it with FAT32, there is a big chance you will not be able to use the full 500GB...

NTFS has also some other benefits, other then the support for high volumes, like more security (if you wish) and better/optimized storage of data.

Bottem line, if you're planning to use your external drive on machines with NTFS compatible OS's like WinXP, etc. stay with NFTS.

---

although that table is a nice and rough comparisson, it has some errors...

In theory, FAT32 volumes can be about 8 terabytes; however, the maximum FAT32 volume size that Windows XP and the likes can format is 32 GB. Therefore, you must use NTFS to format volumes larger than 32 GB. However, Windows XP and the likes can read and write to larger FAT32 volumes formatted by other operating systems.

For FAT32:
Maximum file size: 4 GB minus 1 byte (2^32 bytes minus 1 byte)
Maximum volume size: 32 GB
Files per volume: 4,177,920
Maximum number of files and subfolders within a single folder: 65,534 (The use of long file names can significantly reduce the number of available files and subfolders within a folder!!)

For NFTS:
Maximum file size (in theory): 16 exabytes minus 1 KB (2^64 bytes minus 1 KB)
Maximum file size (in practice): 16 terabytes minus 64 KB (2^44 bytes minus 64 KB)
Maximum volume size (in theory): 2^64 clusters minus 1 cluster
Maximum volume size (in practice): 2^56 terabytes minus 64 KB ( 2^32 clusters minus 1 cluster)
Files per volume: 4,294,967,295 (2^32 minus 1 file)

That are some cool numbers . Well, I think we can all say NTFS is the best choice for his external drive

Yes, NTFS is the clear winner....

ntfs is more likely to go down due to errors then fat32

the ntfs that XP uses  NTFS 3.1 has a major flaw in it which can result in files being allowed use of mft reserved space

this is bad as the mft can become corrupt

resulting in large data loss

in other words

Fat32s file table is alot safer then NTFS's master file table

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
ntfs is more likely to go down due to errors then fat32

the ntfs that XP uses  NTFS 3.1 has a major flaw in it which can result in files being allowed use of mft reserved space

this is bad as the mft can become corrupt

resulting in large data loss

in other words

Fat32s file table is alot safer then NTFS's master file table

---

its very much true

and its not a rumour

its a well documented flaw in the ntfs file system

and if you searched the msn help forums you'd find it yourself

sad to say this,. but your very wrong

i and many others have had this error and returning to Fat32 is the only way to fix it

its caused by a mass amount of files being transferred at once, and the way ntfs drives are handled by windows

the bug was introduced in Windows NT SP6 which became windows 2000 and has never been fixed

i suggest you keep your mouth clamped when you yourself haven't researched the bug, and don't transfer the amounts of data i do along my server and within my computer itself

if you want proof

how bout you search google
for

Chkdsk has discovered freespace marked as allocated within the master file table reserved space

and

chkdsk has discovered freespace marked as allocated within the master file table

there is many accounts of the bug, and you will be surprised at how many have blamed everything from windows. to norton systemworks all the way to Nvidia display drivers

the flaw itself lies within the file system and the way the operating system updates the volume bitmap,

which by the way. handles where all the freespace is reported along the drive

this error is not fixable within chkdsk, and even converting back to fat32 and then back to ntfs does not fix it as the error returns very quickly

some people have fixed it using windows update, and those are the lucky ones

i for one don't wish to risk my data becoz of a flaw in a file system that should have been fixed

and word has it that the WINFS has this flaw fixed,

i would suggest not using any file system which indexes all data in one single file as if that file is damaged.. which btw is VERY easy to do,

everything is lost

Fat32 atleast for me. is assured of repairing any errors reported

and one last time

if you get this ntfs and defrag

then you better hope to god that you don't use the windows defragmenter

as it moves files and data into the mft reserved space

once this happens

chkdsk reports that the Master file table os corrupt and begins removing indexes

the only way to fix this is to go back to Fat32 completely

i for one will not be using anying short of Winfs in the future, and even then once i have become certain that this bug is fixed

CookieRevised

i suggest you check up on your info before you post calling my post rumour and nonsense.. especially when you yourself haven't experienced the problem firsthand, and haven't bothered to research the problem itself

Like I said, the thing you're talking about is NONSENSE!!! There sure can be a small bug in the system, but NFTS is thousand times better, secure and reliable then FAT32 is... And FAT32 contains hundred times more bugs and malfunctions then NFTS.... research on that before claming FAT32 is better then NFTS!

Oh, and if chkdsk is reporting freespace as being marked, then this will NOT result in data loss at all, it only will result in some decreasing of free space. And furthermore, this problem is more persistent in FAT32 then in NFTS! And another thing, cross linked files is VERY common in a FAT32 system and this DOES cause data loss and damage. This problem almost doesn't exist in NFTS systems. And if that isn't enough, due to the way a FAT32 system works, it is VERY prone to errors when the system becomes unstable or hangs, again resulting in major data loss... Also a NFTS system has build-in backup system in the form of a log, for in the rare case that location data is lost, which allows for a transparent, automatically and quick recovery and garantees a consistent filesystem, unlike FAT32...... So before cleaming anything, get your facts strait...

i don't have to research,

i have first hand experience that Fat32 is better then ntfs

the problem happened when i copied all my data back after formatting

ie downloads.. music..

the bug itself lies in copying large amounts of mixed small and large files

for some reason it confuses the volume bitmap and it believes that theres not enough freespace so it allows space to use the mft

the problem is though, is that the mft doesn't properly get notified and doesn't shrink down properly, and instead reports it as an error

but, its when you defrag that it gets really bad becoz the files are moved into the space the mft expands into

and by doing this, the files are over written, by the mft, which doesn't know itself the files have been removed

this in turn causes corruption along the mft and you start getting corrupted indexes

Fat32 has been more stable for me, for as long as i've known it

sure it was less stable on older versions of windows. but seeing as windows ME and XP are both self repairing Operating systems
(with the health of the Windows file protection utility), many errors people talk about work themselves out

i have never had a problem with fat32 and they all started when i went to ntfs

so im just warning people about the problems you CAN face

so if you believe informing people about the problems they can face is nonsense.. then you are one of the monolithic goons that are trying to keep freespeech down, and preventing people knowing all the facts

THE FACTS ARE

NTFS is going to be soon outdated as the WINFS file system will soon become available via a windows update

the WINFS is already supported by windows xp as its not far off of ntfs except its more secure and this flaw and bug is fixed

and that the mft is going to be replaced by a more efficient system

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
reliable then FAT32 is

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r

its very much true

and its not a rumour

its a well documented flaw in the ntfs file system

and if you searched the msn help forums you'd find it yourself

sad to say this,. but your very wrong

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r

the only way to fix this is to go back to Fat32 completely

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
NTFS is going to be soon outdated as the WINFS file system will soon become available via a windows update

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
the WINFS is already supported by windows xp as its not far off of ntfs except its more secure and this flaw and bug is fixed

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demz

if thats so, why does Sourceforge say to Many Linux advacotes that wanna Dual-Boot with or using NTFS that its more safer to use Fat32?.. sure there are NTFS drivers out there to do it, but i myself have never dualbooted a PC using NTFS,  i have used NTFS, but i dont clasify it as being Reliable, .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demz
if thats so, why does Sourceforge say to Many Linux advacotes that wanna Dual-Boot with or using NTFS that its more safer to use Fat32?

---

and in response to your edit

READ THE POST PROPERLY

IT READS

Chkdsk has discovered freespace marked as allocated within the master file table reserved space

and

chkdsk has discovered freespace marked as allocated within the master file table

Which doesn't take away space for the machine as it couldn't use it anyway

what happens is that the mft cannot expand into this sector as freespace has been allocated to that portion of the mft

something i should have done is taken a screenshot of O&O defrag so i could show you that files had been moved for no reason into the mft reserved space zone

AND also, this space is meant to be locked

which means that space isn't being taken away

space is being added

but its not needed as i've got 32gbs of data on an 80gb drive

so theres no reason to put files in the mft zone

and also

i haven't had a crosslinked sector since windows 98

and even if i do, most files are backed up by system restore anyway so the minute one gets messed up,. its replaced by the automatic file protection within XP

cookie. you don't wanna go up against me when it comes to file systems and issues, coz i can't say without a doubt that Fat32 is not as much as a problem as you spin doctors put on it

heres my experience with ntfs

Chkdsk has found errors within the mft
repairing errors (errors never repaired, seems they can't be ( also a bug within ntfs))
Chkdsk has repaired the mft

reboot
chkdsk has discovered that freespace has been allocated in the area marked as mft reserved space
repairing the mft (never repaired)

after backing all my data up

which btw was to a ntfs drive

there was no problems

i backed up with the microsoft backup utility which backed up everything remarkly well (for a microsoft program)

i then restored everything onto Fat32 and ran chkdsk

chdsk has finished with no errors

reboot

chkdsk has finished with no errors

oh i thought lets see

* squall_leonhart69r flicks power off on psu
* squall_leonhart69r turns it back on

windows starts, tells me that windows wasn't shut down and needs to chk the dsk for inconsistancies

chkdsk has finished with no errors

so you see, in my personal experiance. with 5000 other pieved off users who also have the same error as me, Fat32 is the better operating system

Stability wise, performance wise (when considering ntfs has to update everyfile as its used which slows things down)

the hard disk i backed up to never got an error

i believe this is becoz the windows backup utility builds one solid image file and not move the files themselves

i then moved 4 folders containing around 4000 files to the drive and then started recieving the error on it

i formatted. errors gone

copied 2 different folders with dvd image files in them

no problem

i then copied my download folder which has files ranging from sizes 100kb to 100mb+

i recieve the error again

my conclusion is that the volume bitmap is very volatile, and can not handle a mix of large and small files being transferred to it at once.

i have sent and recieved mail from a contact at microsoft who also noted the same problem and informed me that i should return to Fat32 if i handle alot of files

so cookie

i don't have to research, i know how both file systems work

throught my investigation into the problem i learnt alot about ntfs metafiles and metatags

i learnt what each $file handled and what errors can occur in them

and have come to the conclusion

IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THIS EXTERNAL DRIVE AS A BACKUP DRIVE OR STORE LARGE AMOUNTS OF SMALL AND LARGE DATA ON IT

THE SUGGESTION FROM MICROSOFT ITSELF IS TO PARTITION IT SEVERAL WAYS AND FORMAT IT FAT32

Partition the drive with seagate disc wizard
as partition magic causes the drive to have to many logical blocks for some reason rendering the drive unbootable as such

either way its your choice

4kb clusters are the best becoz they prevent space wastage

partition magic will not allow alot of discs to be partitioned to fat32 at 4k but seagate discwizard does it well

i would suggest 4 125gb partitions allowing 4 new drives

eitherway

be sure you know all the risks before using ANY file system

don't listen to what just me an cookie have said

these days you can also create your disc to a raw partition and read and write to it like that

this is actually the most secure way of storing data as its not very easy to read raw file systems without having the required software

alot of networks use raw file systems to back up onto these days

true, but i never put much faith in NTFS , i know lots do boot from a NTFS  but i also hear lots of whinging why it dont work properly etc,  thus why sourceforge recommend dualbooting from Fat32,   but i have to say ..thinking NTFS is safe, it might be, but intill we got the word from Microsoft or any other official source  to say it isnt,  we can only have our own oppinions in whats safe an  whats not safe, 

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
cookie. you don't wanna go up against me when it comes to file systems and issues, coz i can't say without a doubt that Fat32 is not as much as a problem as you spin doctors put on it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THIS EXTERNAL DRIVE AS A BACKUP DRIVE OR STORE LARGE AMOUNTS OF SMALL AND LARGE DATA ON IT
THE SUGGESTION FROM MICROSOFT ITSELF IS TO PARTITION IT SEVERAL WAYS AND FORMAT IT FAT32

---

WOAH

well if government servers are using ntfs they deserve to lose data alot

my ole school lost alot of data when one of the drives got hit by a virus that destroys the mft

the computer tech dude said to me, wouldn't have happened with fat32, he also said, he doesn't recommend servers use ntfs not for security reasons but for the same thing i've just been talking about

he'd been working at a school trying to recover about 300gbs of data that had been lost when the mft got damaged

and chris

Fault tolerance only works when the drive supports it
and not all drives do

mine is one that doesn't

cookie... i've been playing with hard discs before they reached the size of a cdrom bay

i've used raw fat fat32, ntfs on some server machines
i've used compressed drivers

i've been partitioning formatting low level formatting and converting hard disks since i was 8

i used to rip macs apart and piece em back together, to a working state

i don't care whether your in the believe that your older so you know more.. coz thats crap

i know a 5 yr old that knows as much as i do,

most of the crap i know about computers i didn't even learn,

people have been paying me to repair computers since i was 10, and im the first person, in the entire of my suburb, that people call, when they have problems,

so untill you can come back and tell me that you have a base of people and friends that big who trust me with the maintenance and repairs on there machines

just don't speak at all

i only got my it2 cert last yr, and i hardly went to any classes for that certificate

i don't read from books, which is why i know alot more about things then most people

my friend who did the same course as me, couldn't even format and reinstall windows

and they taught it in my course

which is skipped that day anyway

but don't bring up the shit that you've been using hard drives alot longer then me

coz i've got uncles older then you, one of which works at ibm and is a hardcore lan gamer who goes to lan parties

and knew half as much as what i do about tweaking performance to a max

you and your 28 yrs mean buckley to me,

age doesn't mean wisdom

just means your closer to carking it

also if you do go with ntfs on a single partition use this

1. Start regedit from the run command.
2. Check out for that key called

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\ SYSTEM\ CurrentControlSet\ Control\ FileSystem

3. Create a DWORD-variable with the name NtfsMftZoneReservation.
4. Add the value 1 = 12.5% (Windows default value) or 2 = 25%. This values are percent free Harddiskspace.
5. Reboot the system

bigger hard disks need a bigger MFT reserved space otherwise the mft won't be written and you will lose data


edit: thanks for merging em chris. was about to do it myself

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
Fat32 is the better operating system

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
Stability wise, performance wise (when considering ntfs has to update everyfile as its used which slows things down)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
(...) i believe (...)
(...) my conclusion (...)
(...) my investigation into the problem (...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
Partition the drive with seagate disc wizard
as partition magic causes the drive to have to many logical blocks for some reason rendering the drive unbootable as such

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
4kb clusters are the best becoz they prevent space wastage

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
my ole school lost alot of data when one of the drives got hit by a virus that destroys the mft
the computer tech dude said to me, wouldn't have happened with fat32

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
and chris
Fault tolerance only works when the drive supports it
and not all drives do

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
cookie... i've been playing with hard discs before they reached the size of a cdrom bay
i've used raw fat fat32, ntfs on some server machines
i've used compressed drivers
i've been partitioning formatting low level formatting and converting hard disks since i was 8
i used to rip macs apart and piece em back together, to a working state

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
people have been paying me to repair computers since i was 10, and im the first person, in the entire of my suburb, that people call, when they have problems

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
so untill you can come back and tell me that you have a base of people and friends that big who trust me with the maintenance and repairs on there machines
just don't speak at all

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
i only got my it2 cert last yr, and i hardly went to any classes for that certificate

i don't read from books, which is why i know alot more about things then most people

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
coz i've got uncles older then you, one of which works at ibm and is a hardcore lan gamer who goes to lan parties

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
cookie. you don't wanna go up against me when it comes to file systems and issues, coz i can't say without a doubt that Fat32 is not as much as a problem as you spin doctors put on it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
also if you do go with ntfs on a single partition use this

1. Start regedit from the run command.
2. Check out for that key called

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\ SYSTEM\ CurrentControlSet\ Control\ FileSystem

3. Create a DWORD-variable with the name NtfsMftZoneReservation.
4. Add the value 1 = 12.5% (Windows default value) or 2 = 25%. This values are percent free Harddiskspace.
5. Reboot the system

bigger hard disks need a bigger MFT reserved space otherwise the mft won't be written and you will lose data

---

actually thats where your wrong

if the mft isn't big enough to store new data in, that data is lost

its the way the indexing works

if it can't be indexed its not present on the drive

the person who wrote this themselves started losing data becoz his mft was at its maximum

once he added this string to the registry he was able to save data to the drive again

The settings are done automatically when you format your drive with NFTS. And on a healthy system, Windows will warn you when it has reached the limit, result: no there is NO data loss (on a healthy system), you simply can't add more data...

actually its not done automatically

windows defaults to 12.5% of a hard disks space to reserve for the mft reserved space

on extremely large hard drives like 500gb, then its very easy to fill the reserved space completely

this is where that registry string comes in

allowing for more space to be reserved and more data to be allowed to be saved

only problem is the reserved space becomes fragmented resulting in a fragmented MFT

and when you format it goes back to the default 12.5% reserved space

Squall, how on earth did you gain this "knowledge"?
You're 18, you've probably just finished high school...
Ever seen Cookie's age? 28, yeah, he probably had a tad more education I guess....
furthermore, WDZ works with server systems a lot. on servers, It is VERY important that no data loss ever occurs, so I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about...

I don't know where the hell you found out about your "facts", but please keep in the back of your mind that half the internet still screams msgplus contains spyware...

EDIT:
As for the topic
You should look at how you're gonna use the disk.
If you will just be using it for the current system (Windows XP), I highly recommend that you use NTFS.
However, if you're planning to sometimes bring it along to friends (a friend of me sometimes takes his HDD with him to transfer some not-so-legal files), I suggest you stick with FAT32, simply because not everyone has XP yet, and Windows 98/ME can not access NTFS filesystems

well i know msgplus doesn't contain spyware

but i also know that this is a flaw within ntfs and it has been noted down by microsoft

im just informing people to be careful with it, becoz i dn't want anyone else having the same problems that i did

and cookies age means nothing to me

alot of kids younger then cookie know more then cookie and thats just life

i've known alot since before i finished high school and there was only 2 things that my it2 cert actually helped me accomplish

hit a typing speed of 80wpm with an accuracy of 99%

and how to install stuff on a Emac

which i've never done before

but i also did work placement at my local council office and i helped to sort out post network updates as they had just switched over to a 1gb server from a 100mb one

they were having some minor tcp/ip hickups

im not some kid and i do know what im talking bout

these are the problems i had and i just want people to know about them

i don't want to put people off ntfs, becoz i know it does work

it just didn't for me

and the way it bugged out on me is the same way it happened for the others

and that is when moving alot of data across which ranges in size,
and im only repeating what the email from ms actually said, and its that the large amounts of small and big files must've caused some kind of confusion in the volume bitmap

and that its (exerpt from email)

For the record this 'error' was introduced
              in windows NT 5 (Beta) RC0 which became W2K and has
              existed ever since with a few minor fixes. Previous
              versions of NTFS were rock solid relative to the
              'bitmap' error that appears like a phantom. The problem
              goes far beyond installing service packs or windows
              updates and can occur frequently. If you have a
              performance 'hit' then your 'bitmap image' could be
              damaged and needs to be repaired. If you need more
              information contact me.

i contacted him again and he told me to use partition magic to convert back to fat32 again, and then back to ntfs

i did this but the problem came back after 1 reboot

i informed him of this and he said that since the error only happens with ntfs and not fat32, and since it only happened when moving alot of data

just stick to fat32

so thats what i've done

but the bug does exist so im just putting a warning out there that this can happen

thats all i really intended

cookie is the one calling it nonsense and rumour

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
well i know msgplus doesn't contain spyware

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
cookie is the one calling it nonsense and rumour

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
ntfs is more likely to go down due to errors then fat32
(...)
Fat32s file table is alot safer then NTFS's master file table
(...)
i would suggest not using any file system which indexes all data in one single file as if that file is damaged.. which btw is VERY easy to do
(...)
if you get this ntfs and defrag then you better hope to god that you don't use the windows defragmenter
(...)
NTFS is going to be soon outdated as the WINFS file system will soon become available via a windows update
(...)
the WINFS is already supported by windows xp
(...)
Fat32 is the better operating system
(...)
Stability wise, performance wise (when considering ntfs has to update everyfile as its used which slows things down) FAT32 is better
(...)
i believe this is becoz the windows backup utility builds one solid image file and not move the files themselves
(...)
IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THIS EXTERNAL DRIVE AS A BACKUP DRIVE OR STORE LARGE AMOUNTS OF SMALL AND LARGE DATA ON IT THE SUGGESTION FROM MICROSOFT ITSELF IS TO PARTITION IT SEVERAL WAYS AND FORMAT IT FAT32
(...)
Partition the drive with seagate disc wizard as partition magic causes the drive to have to many logical blocks for some reason rendering the drive unbootable as such
(...)
4kb clusters are the best becoz they prevent space wastage
(...)
partition magic will not allow alot of discs to be partitioned to fat32 at 4k but seagate discwizard does it well
(...)
i would suggest 4 125gb partitions allowing 4 new drives
(...)
etc...

---

well its just that some bios's don't support over 125gb partitions so by splitting the hard disk that way would increase support

who cares about facts

what is a fact in this world?

i can tell you a fact is just a belief till someone proves it

and i and many other people who got this error proved it

so that makes it a fact

Any room for a Computer Scientist? Yes? Good.

squall, do you have any idea how a hard drive works? How a filesystem works? How the OS, filesystem and hard disk interact? I've skipped most of your bullshit because you clearly don't understand at all.
For instance, do you know what FAT stands for? In fact, why don't we check your familiarity with FSs in general? So, what's an inode?

I may not have fiddled with hard drives at a low level, but I have written an all-software FAT filesystem, so I know for certain how much you need to overwrite to render the drive useless. How much, do you ask? One entry - the root directory. Overwrite that, and the entire filesystem goes down. Not to mention the complete lack of journalling, which allows small errors to accumulate and cripple the entire partition.

Now, NTFS and its MFT are much more resilient, due mostly to journalling. So, if the root directory is overwritten, the journal can be used to recover it.

As for these CHKDSK errors, you really think they can't be fixed? Free MFT space that's marked as allocated can be remarked as free if that space isn't part of a file. If it is, then you move the data somewhere else, out of the MFT.
Try doing that in FAT32 - you can't.

As for these errors 'proving' that there's a flaw...
(at this point patience expires)
That is absolute bollocks. I'm sorry, but a few people experience an entirely fixable error, and you call it a major flaw?

Microsoft haven't patched the bug since there is no bug!

quote:

---

Originally posted by squall_leonhart69r
well its just that some bios's don't support over 125gb partitions so by splitting the hard disk that way would increase support

who cares about facts

what is a fact in this world?

i can tell you a fact is just a belief till someone proves it

and i and many other people who got this error proved it

so that makes it a fact

---