Readyboost FAT, FAT32 or NTFS?

Hi All

I'm currently using a 2gig pen drive which is formatted using the FAT file
system, the question is: is this the best file system to use or would
NTFS/FAT32 be quicker for the drive/readyboost?

Andy.

If it currently works without any problem, leave it as it is. You will gain
nothing by changing it.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User


"Andy Pritchard" <> wrote in message
news:6C8359CF-8A5D-4C7E-B55B-...
> Hi All
>
> I'm currently using a 2gig pen drive which is formatted using the FAT file
> system, the question is: is this the best file system to use or would
> NTFS/FAT32 be quicker for the drive/readyboost?
>
> Andy.

Even though FAT uses 32k blocks ?

Andy.

"Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
news:...
> If it currently works without any problem, leave it as it is. You will
> gain nothing by changing it.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban MVP
> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "Andy Pritchard" <> wrote in message
> news:6C8359CF-8A5D-4C7E-B55B-...
>> Hi All
>>
>> I'm currently using a 2gig pen drive which is formatted using the FAT
>> file system, the question is: is this the best file system to use or
>> would NTFS/FAT32 be quicker for the drive/readyboost?
>>
>> Andy.
>

I tend to agree with Richard on this- if it's working
leave it alone.

I will add some things that I've found. I have been
using Vista since June when Beta2 came out. When
I first started messing around with ReadyBoost I found
that it can be a bit tricky at times to get it to work and
keep it working. Some flash drives don't seem to work
the first time that you put them in, but if you format the
device and test it again, it does. Putting the device in
another USB slot might get it to pass testing. Not plugging
it into a USB hub may get it working. Going into Device Manager
and checking under the tab "Policies" for 'Optimize for Performance'
of your USB device may get it to work. Sometimes clicking
"Test Again" a few times will get it working. Of course, many
users get their sticks to work right away with no problems, and
it may be because they are simply using a better/faster USB
flash drive.

Also, every so often, when I put my computer to sleep or even
on some reboots, ReadyBoost would not be working upon
restarting. I would then pull it out and stick it back in, only to
be told my USB stick didn't have enough room. The ReadyBoost
file was on there but not being used. A quick format would get it
working again. I then tried formatting it with NTFS, since then I
have not had any problems with it not working after awaking from
sleep.

Some say FAT and FAT32 are a bit faster than NTFS on small drives.
NTFS is more solid, robust, and more stable than FAT or FAT32.
Some say NTFS *may* wear-out a USB flash drive quicker than FAT.
I don't know.

I do know this, if you have 1GB and over of RAM, you are likely not
notice any performance increase when using ReadyBoost- I really
think the feature is a bit over-hyped. I have 2GB of RAM on this laptop,
and the only time I have ever noticed ReadyBoost giving me a boost,
is when I am using a virtual machine. YMMV, of course.

Anyway, if ReadyBoost is working as is, I'd leave it alone until it
gives you a problem. If it does, try formatting it to NTFS.

Take care,

Michael

"Andy Pritchard" <> wrote in message
news:CCB25A30-B54C-4BCC-870A-...
> Even though FAT uses 32k blocks ?
>
> Andy.
>
> "Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> If it currently works without any problem, leave it as it is. You will gain nothing by
>> changing it.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban MVP
>> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>>
>>
>> "Andy Pritchard" <> wrote in message
>> news:6C8359CF-8A5D-4C7E-B55B-...
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> I'm currently using a 2gig pen drive which is formatted using the FAT file system, the
>>> question is: is this the best file system to use or would NTFS/FAT32 be quicker for the
>>> drive/readyboost?
>>>
>>> Andy.
>>
>

Thanks for the info, I will leave as FAT and enable 'Optimize for
Performance' on the drive

Andy.

"MICHAEL" <> wrote in message
news:e%...
>I tend to agree with Richard on this- if it's working
> leave it alone.
>
> I will add some things that I've found. I have been
> using Vista since June when Beta2 came out. When
> I first started messing around with ReadyBoost I found
> that it can be a bit tricky at times to get it to work and
> keep it working. Some flash drives don't seem to work
> the first time that you put them in, but if you format the
> device and test it again, it does. Putting the device in
> another USB slot might get it to pass testing. Not plugging
> it into a USB hub may get it working. Going into Device Manager
> and checking under the tab "Policies" for 'Optimize for Performance'
> of your USB device may get it to work. Sometimes clicking
> "Test Again" a few times will get it working. Of course, many
> users get their sticks to work right away with no problems, and
> it may be because they are simply using a better/faster USB
> flash drive.
>
> Also, every so often, when I put my computer to sleep or even
> on some reboots, ReadyBoost would not be working upon
> restarting. I would then pull it out and stick it back in, only to
> be told my USB stick didn't have enough room. The ReadyBoost
> file was on there but not being used. A quick format would get it
> working again. I then tried formatting it with NTFS, since then I
> have not had any problems with it not working after awaking from
> sleep.
>
> Some say FAT and FAT32 are a bit faster than NTFS on small drives.
> NTFS is more solid, robust, and more stable than FAT or FAT32.
> Some say NTFS *may* wear-out a USB flash drive quicker than FAT.
> I don't know.
>
> I do know this, if you have 1GB and over of RAM, you are likely not
> notice any performance increase when using ReadyBoost- I really
> think the feature is a bit over-hyped. I have 2GB of RAM on this laptop,
> and the only time I have ever noticed ReadyBoost giving me a boost,
> is when I am using a virtual machine. YMMV, of course.
>
> Anyway, if ReadyBoost is working as is, I'd leave it alone until it
> gives you a problem. If it does, try formatting it to NTFS.
>
> Take care,
>
> Michael
>
> "Andy Pritchard" <> wrote in message
> news:CCB25A30-B54C-4BCC-870A-...
>> Even though FAT uses 32k blocks ?
>>
>> Andy.
>>
>> "Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> If it currently works without any problem, leave it as it is. You will
>>> gain nothing by changing it.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Richard Urban MVP
>>> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>>>
>>>
>>> "Andy Pritchard" <> wrote in message
>>> news:6C8359CF-8A5D-4C7E-B55B-...
>>>> Hi All
>>>>
>>>> I'm currently using a 2gig pen drive which is formatted using the FAT
>>>> file system, the question is: is this the best file system to use or
>>>> would NTFS/FAT32 be quicker for the drive/readyboost?
>>>>
>>>> Andy.
>>>
>>
>

In message <e#> "MICHAEL"
<> wrote:

>Some say NTFS *may* wear-out a USB flash drive quicker than FAT.
>I don't know.

Other way around, FAT (FAT16 especially) places the first copy of the
FAT in a relatively static location, where as with NTFS the file system
structures are scattered around the drive.

Makes zero difference for ReadyBoost though, as Readyboost isn't
manipulating the allocation tables except when initially creating the
ReadyBoost file.
--
Insert something clever here.

"DevilsPGD" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In message <e#> "MICHAEL"
> <> wrote:
>
>>Some say NTFS *may* wear-out a USB flash drive quicker than FAT.
>>I don't know.
>
> Other way around, FAT (FAT16 especially) places the first copy of the
> FAT in a relatively static location, where as with NTFS the file system
> structures are scattered around the drive.
>
> Makes zero difference for ReadyBoost though, as Readyboost isn't
> manipulating the allocation tables except when initially creating the
> ReadyBoost file.

These are the types of things I have read about.
Although, like you said, it shouldn't be a problem
with Readyboost. The first link actually gives some
good info on the read and write speeds of FAT16
and FAT32, too.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2549
Many have cited that NTFS' journaling will increase wear on flash memory, which has a limited
number of write cycles before it can no longer be used, but given that that limit is generally
about 1,000,000 erase/write cycles, simply using NTFS is not going to make a huge dent in the
life span of these drives. You will more than likely upgrade to a larger drive by the time you
hit that limit.

http://blogs.chron.com/helpline/arch...ormat_for.html
The main problem with formatting flash drives using NTFS is that the features of this format
also produce much more wear and tear on the flash drive which will cause it to wear out much
faster.
NTFS is a journaling files system and, as such, reads and writes to files much more often than
other file systems like FAT and FAT32. This is because disk transactions are logged separately
on the disk as they occur.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=1676&page=8

One potential negative of using NTFS on your flash drive is the additional data writes that are
necessary. NTFS is a journaling file system, which means that disk transactions are logged
separately on the disk as they occur. This adds up to a considerable amount of extra disk
activity, which could mean wearing out your USB drive faster in the long run.

http://www.uwe-sieber.de/usbstick_e.html
But actually NTFS isn't suitable for flash medias because as journaling file system it has some
overhead that wears out flash memory. But Windows XP optimizes and bundles write accesses to
pen drives only when they are NTFS formatted, so I see NTFS as the right choice.
Furthermore NTFS stores small files together with the file information so they are written into
the same flash block which is the best that can happen.
A drawback with NTFS and flash medias is that NTFS saves the access time when you read a file,
so a simple read access causes flash wear out. In fact it is not as dramatically because
Windows writes the data not immediately onto the media.

http://www.tabletquestions.com/windo...fat-fat32.html

Some seem to worry that when formatted as fat that the 64k sectors (in a 2
gig USB drive) will cause a problem with small files wasting a lot of space.
There aren't any small files. There is one large file that can take up most,
if not all, of the drive. I would surmise that writes to within this file
are similar to the way a data base functions. At any rate, the fat vs. NTFS
controversy doesn't really apply here.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User


"MICHAEL" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "DevilsPGD" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> In message <e#> "MICHAEL"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>Some say NTFS *may* wear-out a USB flash drive quicker than FAT.
>>>I don't know.
>>
>> Other way around, FAT (FAT16 especially) places the first copy of the
>> FAT in a relatively static location, where as with NTFS the file system
>> structures are scattered around the drive.
>>
>> Makes zero difference for ReadyBoost though, as Readyboost isn't
>> manipulating the allocation tables except when initially creating the
>> ReadyBoost file.
>
> These are the types of things I have read about.
> Although, like you said, it shouldn't be a problem
> with Readyboost. The first link actually gives some
> good info on the read and write speeds of FAT16
> and FAT32, too.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2549
> Many have cited that NTFS' journaling will increase wear on flash memory,
> which has a limited number of write cycles before it can no longer be
> used, but given that that limit is generally about 1,000,000 erase/write
> cycles, simply using NTFS is not going to make a huge dent in the life
> span of these drives. You will more than likely upgrade to a larger drive
> by the time you hit that limit.
>
> http://blogs.chron.com/helpline/arch...ormat_for.html
> The main problem with formatting flash drives using NTFS is that the
> features of this format also produce much more wear and tear on the flash
> drive which will cause it to wear out much faster.
> NTFS is a journaling files system and, as such, reads and writes to files
> much more often than other file systems like FAT and FAT32. This is
> because disk transactions are logged separately on the disk as they occur.
>
> http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=1676&page=8
>
> One potential negative of using NTFS on your flash drive is the additional
> data writes that are necessary. NTFS is a journaling file system, which
> means that disk transactions are logged separately on the disk as they
> occur. This adds up to a considerable amount of extra disk activity, which
> could mean wearing out your USB drive faster in the long run.
>
> http://www.uwe-sieber.de/usbstick_e.html
> But actually NTFS isn't suitable for flash medias because as journaling
> file system it has some overhead that wears out flash memory. But Windows
> XP optimizes and bundles write accesses to pen drives only when they are
> NTFS formatted, so I see NTFS as the right choice.
> Furthermore NTFS stores small files together with the file information so
> they are written into the same flash block which is the best that can
> happen.
> A drawback with NTFS and flash medias is that NTFS saves the access time
> when you read a file, so a simple read access causes flash wear out. In
> fact it is not as dramatically because Windows writes the data not
> immediately onto the media.
>
> http://www.tabletquestions.com/windo...fat-fat32.html

"Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Some seem to worry that when formatted as fat that the 64k sectors (in a 2
> gig USB drive) will cause a problem with small files wasting a lot of
> space. There aren't any small files. There is one large file that can take
> up most, if not all, of the drive. I would surmise that writes to within
> this file are similar to the way a data base functions. At any rate, the
> fat vs. NTFS controversy doesn't really apply here.
>


I keep mine formatted as FAT, so that I can use the flash drive with Macs.

ss.

Richard,

Do you think there might be some noticeable difference in
performance of ReadyBoost using FAT vs. NTFS? Or, because
ReadyBoost is really one large file, it doesn't matter? I know I
can't tell. Like I've said before, with 2Gb of RAM, the only time
it seems ReadyBoost may help, is when I'm running a virtual
machine. Although, since formatting my ReadyBoost flash drive
to NTFS, the problems I had with it not working after coming out
of sleep or on some reboots, has gone away. It actually took me
awhile to even notice ReadyBoost wasn't working after Sleep. There
are no error messages and if you were to look in "Services" it would
say ReadyBoost was started. I'd go to check the ReadyBoost tab of
the drive and it would say there wasn't enough room. I started paying
more attention, and about 50% of the time, ReadyBoost would not be
working after Sleep. Formatted it to NTFS over a month ago, and that
problem has gone away.

Thanks for the info.

-Michael

"Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Some seem to worry that when formatted as fat that the 64k sectors (in a 2 gig USB drive)
> will cause a problem with small files wasting a lot of space. There aren't any small files.
> There is one large file that can take up most, if not all, of the drive. I would surmise that
> writes to within this file are similar to the way a data base functions. At any rate, the fat
> vs. NTFS controversy doesn't really apply here.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban MVP
> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "MICHAEL" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>> "DevilsPGD" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> In message <e#> "MICHAEL"
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Some say NTFS *may* wear-out a USB flash drive quicker than FAT.
>>>>I don't know.
>>>
>>> Other way around, FAT (FAT16 especially) places the first copy of the
>>> FAT in a relatively static location, where as with NTFS the file system
>>> structures are scattered around the drive.
>>>
>>> Makes zero difference for ReadyBoost though, as Readyboost isn't
>>> manipulating the allocation tables except when initially creating the
>>> ReadyBoost file.
>>
>> These are the types of things I have read about.
>> Although, like you said, it shouldn't be a problem
>> with Readyboost. The first link actually gives some
>> good info on the read and write speeds of FAT16
>> and FAT32, too.
>>
>> http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2549
>> Many have cited that NTFS' journaling will increase wear on flash memory, which has a
>> limited number of write cycles before it can no longer be used, but given that that limit is
>> generally about 1,000,000 erase/write cycles, simply using NTFS is not going to make a huge
>> dent in the life span of these drives. You will more than likely upgrade to a larger drive
>> by the time you hit that limit.
>>
>> http://blogs.chron.com/helpline/arch...ormat_for.html
>> The main problem with formatting flash drives using NTFS is that the features of this format
>> also produce much more wear and tear on the flash drive which will cause it to wear out much
>> faster.
>> NTFS is a journaling files system and, as such, reads and writes to files much more often
>> than other file systems like FAT and FAT32. This is because disk transactions are logged
>> separately on the disk as they occur.
>>
>> http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=1676&page=8
>>
>> One potential negative of using NTFS on your flash drive is the additional data writes that
>> are necessary. NTFS is a journaling file system, which means that disk transactions are
>> logged separately on the disk as they occur. This adds up to a considerable amount of extra
>> disk activity, which could mean wearing out your USB drive faster in the long run.
>>
>> http://www.uwe-sieber.de/usbstick_e.html
>> But actually NTFS isn't suitable for flash medias because as journaling file system it has
>> some overhead that wears out flash memory. But Windows XP optimizes and bundles write
>> accesses to pen drives only when they are NTFS formatted, so I see NTFS as the right choice.
>> Furthermore NTFS stores small files together with the file information so they are written
>> into the same flash block which is the best that can happen.
>> A drawback with NTFS and flash medias is that NTFS saves the access time when you read a
>> file, so a simple read access causes flash wear out. In fact it is not as dramatically
>> because Windows writes the data not immediately onto the media.
>>
>> http://www.tabletquestions.com/windo...fat-fat32.html
>