Question : Problem: Differences betbeen FAT16 and FAT32

I want to know the differences in speed and performance for these two. I know the limit of FAT16 and I know that FAT32 is 'dynamic', but which one runs faster, is more stable and has less problems?

Any other info also gladly accepted.

Thanks

Virus_ii

200 points divided up into the 2 best answers...

Answer : Problem: Differences betbeen FAT16 and FAT32

Okay - the low down on FAT and FAT 32:

A file allocation table (FAT) is a table that an operating system maintains on a hard disk that provides a map of the clusters (the basic unit of logical storage on a hard disk) that a file has been stored in. When you write a new file to a hard disk, the file is stored in one or more clusters that are not necessarily next to each other; they may be rather widely scattered over the disk. A typical cluster size is 2,048 bytes, 4,096 bytes, or 8,192 bytes. The operating system creates a FAT entry for the new file that records where each cluster is located and their sequential order. When you read a file, the operating system reassembles the file from clusters and places it as an entire file where you want to read it. For example, if this is a long Web page, it may very well be stored on more than one cluster on your hard disk.

Until Windows 95 OSR2 (OEM Release 2), DOS and Windows file allocation table entries were 16 bits in length, limiting hard disk size to 128 megabytes, assuming a 2,048 size cluster. Up to 512 megabyte support is possible assuming a cluster size of 8,192 but at the cost of using clusters inefficiently. DOS 5.0 and later versions provide for support of hard disks up to two gigabytes with the 16-bit FAT entry limit by supporting separate FATs for up to four partitions.

With 32-bit FAT entry (FAT32) support in Windows 95 OSR2, the largest size hard disk that can be supported is two terabytes! However, PC users are more likely to take advantage of FAT32 with 5 or 10 gigabyte drives.

Advantages of FAT:

Slightly faster (not noticably)
Less fragmentation
Backwards compatible with MS-DOS

Disadvantages of FAT:

Lost disk space if drive > 512Mb because of cluster size.
No partitions larger than 2Gb

Advantages of FAT 32:

Lots of small files waste less disk space
More stable (in theory)
Partitions can be as large as 2TB

Disadvantages of FAT 32:

Slightly slower
More defragmentation
Not compatible with early versions of DOS

If I had a choice I would go for FAT32 every time because that Windoze directory can waste loads of space on a FAT drive.  Why?  Simply because it has thousands of tiny files in it.

Before FAT32 came out I used to shove Win95 on a small partition (512Mb) so that it wouldn't waste too much space.  However, hard disks have got so large now that it probably doesn't even matter.

As for fragmentation - FAT32 is worse but its not too bad.

Speed and performance - not much in it really - not noticable.

Cheers

Tech Dude