SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Spots who wrote (2044)8/21/1998 7:47:00 PM
From: Sean W. Smith  Respond to of 14778
 
Spots,

assuming lots of small files, maybe. In all the benchmarks I have seen FAT32 is 2-4% slower. Like I said you really can't compare large disks since FAT16 doesn't support them. One could argue that the increase # of entried in the FAT would yield longer hash lookups and that larger clusters would increase throughput on large files. All I can go by are the benchmarks I have seen and performed. Anyway you look at it though IMO FAT32 is a winner over FAT16.

Sean


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News