Talk:NTFS

Versions

The text now reads:

NTFS has five versions:

   * v1.0
   * v1.1
   * v1.2 found in NT 3.51 and NT 4
   * v3.0 found in Windows 2000
   * v3.1 found in Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, and Windows Vista

These final three versions are sometimes referred to as v5.0, v5.1, and v6.0, after the version of Windows NT with which they ship. Each newer version added extra features, for example Windows 2000 introduced quotas while Windows Vista introduced Transactional NTFS, NTFS symbolic links, and self-healing functionality.[7]

"These final three versions" can't be right.

a) That would mean that v.1.2 is sometimes referred to as v.5.0 after NT 4.

b) If, indeed, as the text states, v3.1 is found in XP, 2003, and Vista, then we are saying that v3.1 is sometimes referred to as v5.1 after XP and 2003 and that v3.1 is also sometimes referred to as v6.0 after Vista.

That could be. I don't have Vista, so can't check what version of NTFS is shipped with Vista. A bit of web surfing and searching turned up no answer. (Above there is mention of a reference that indicates Vista uses NTFS v3.1; but at this time the response of the referenced server is too slow to please Firefox.)

    --Joaquin  —Preceding comment was added at 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 

The comment was corrupted by some intermediate change. A quick check back to January finds this wording:

  * v3.1 found in Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, and in current pre-release versions of Windows Vista
  These final three versions are sometimes referred to as v4.0, v5.0, and v5.1, after the version of Windows
  with which they ship. Each newer version added extra features, for example Windows 2000 introduced quotas.

...so there's more to research before fixing the text Tedickey (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just ran fsutil on my Vista Ultimate laptop, and it reported NTFS v3.1:

C:\Windows\system32>ver

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6000]

C:\Windows\system32>fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo C:
NTFS Volume Serial Number :       0xde7067487067270d
Version :                         3.1
...

Note that fsutil requires admin rights, so in Vista you need to load cmd.exe as Administrator. If you have a shortcut to cmd.exe, right-click on it and choose Run As Administrator. Or do a search for cmd.exe, and run it as an admin. I couldn't get the oft-quoted Control-Shift-Enter trick to work in the release version of Vista. — EagleOne\^Talk 07:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What means "occasionally" or "sometimes referred" for NTFS 5.0? Microsoft introduced NTFS 5.0 with Windows 2000 (NT 5). Background: http://www.microsoft.com/msj/1198/ntfs/ntfs.aspx , http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/verNTFS50-c.html (Microsofts offical wording: i.e. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/186750/en-us) 85.178.82.64 (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally means that different people call it different names. Examination of the file system record which contains the major and minor version (file id 3 named \$Volume, record type 0x70 ($VOLUME_INFORMATION), is a sixteen byte record ("attribute") where the byte at offset 8 contains the major version and offset 9 is a byte with the minor version. I have researched this by installing various windows versions, formatting volumes, and running a program which displays these bytes:

NTFS major	NTFS minor	microsoft marketing product name	OS internal version number
1	2	NT 3.5 and NT 3.51	3.50 and 3.51
1	2	NT 4.0	4.0
3	0	Windows 2000	5.0
3	1	Windows XP	5.1 and 5.2
3	1	Windows Server 2003	5.2
3	1	Windows Vista	6.0
3	1	Windows Server 2008	6.0

There is no NTFS version 5.0! But those with an OS-centric view naturally assume that NT 5.0 (aka Win2K) must create NTFS 5.0 volumes. Some highly respected people do it, but that isn't an excuse for not trying to get it right. —EncMstr (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore WP:NOR for a second and put this clear table in the article, at the moment the text is slightly confusing. And while at it remove my "fact"-tag if you are sure that the $boot file has size 8192 — but my own original research tends more towards "one $boot cluster", e.g., I found the backup always in the last cluster for cluster size 8 (= 4096 bytes for sector size 512). –82.113.103.164 (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Intellectual property restrictions?

Years ago some Linux distros refused to include NTFS code due to IP issues. Today the consensus seems to be, that there are no IP restrictions on NTFS implementations. Can someone clear this up? Were there IP issues and they expired? --Xerces8 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

[1] from a vendor selling an NTFS drivers says there are no known patents and Microsoft has never said there were any patents. This doesn't of course mean there are no patents but although I can find a lot of talk about patent risks I can't find anyone who's actually identified a patent (but didn't look that hard). Microsoft has enforced patents involving File Allocation Table recently, it would be interesting to note what the situation there was like. Had Microsoft ever said anything about having patents and had others ever identified the patents and how long ago? Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

data deduplication?

I marked "data deduplication" as in need of a citation. I am not aware that NTFS provides this feature. In case it is meant to refer to "Single Instance Storage", this is not an NTFS feature, but a service provided by some Windows OS's (mostly server versions). If data deduplication were truly a NTFS feature, it would be available regardless of the OS, but this turns out not to be true as e.g. Windows XP is based on NTFS but does not provide data deduplication natively. boarders paradise (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

wrong link

Wrong link #24: http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/435/07/8.html -- redirects to bookstore http://www.left-brain.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.192.248.201 (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Maximum clusters

However, the maximum NTFS volume size as implemented in Windows XP Professional is 232−1 clusters

This is confusing. Does it mean the maximum in newer versions of Windows is higher or is it the maximum was lower before Windows XP Professional but is the same until Windows 7 or has it always been the same but it is outdated/using an outdated ref Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Should be 2³²-1 clusters, but yes, that is correct. In 2003, there were no disks (though there were a few rare disk storage controllers) with more than 32 bit LBA, so presumably the raw disk driver in XP did not address that many blocks. Lacking that support, there was no need for the NTFS driver to manage cluster numbers with more than 32 bits, a considerable simplification at the time before 64-bit CPUs. The data structure containing cluster numbers was architected at inception for values up to 15 bytes, 120-bit cluster numbers! Probably those aren't internally supported either now, and won't be for a long time. —EncMstr (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Linux drivers disallow unsafe volume changes, to avoid corruption

Due to the complexity of internal NTFS structures, both the built-in 2.6.14 kernel driver and the FUSE drivers disallow changes to the volume that are considered unsafe, to avoid corruption.

I'm trying to grasp what useful information this gives (from the end of the section about the Linux NTFS drivers). As a programmer this is about like reading a section about a memory manager that says it doesn't allow freeing a block twice, to avoid corruption. Is it that these "unsafe" changes are ones that are genuinely useful in some circumstances and don't cause corruption, but cause corruption in others, and are thus disallowed (even though functionality is reduced)? 72.48.75.131 (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

File:NTPermissions.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NTPermissions.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Xbox 360 incompatability

Would it be suitable to add something about Microsofts Xbox 360 not supporting NTFS despite both being Microsoft creations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.199.151 (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why. Lots of of other MS stuff doesn't have NTFS either so why just mention the Xbox? HumphreyW (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware that a lot of other stuff didn't support it. I thought it was just the xbox. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.199.151 (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File compression

The section about file compression currently states as follows:

Compressing system files used at bootup like drivers, NTLDR, winload.exe, or BOOTMGR may prevent the system from booting correctly.

It cites a TechNet article regarding troubleshooting disk problems on Windows 2000. The page only contains a single reference to compression, which is the error message "NTLDR is compressed."

Why does the article make the assumption that compressing system boot files may cause trouble during bootup? As a test, I fully applied NTFS compression on my Windows 7 x64 system drive (after making a backup). I have since been using it daily, without any issue, for a full two weeks. Initially there was some slowdown during the startup process, but even that seems to have sorted itself out -- presumably by the boot optimizer.

As such, I'm recommending this line be updated or dropped from the article until a more suitable citation can be provided. 142.23.94.224 (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Since XP SP2, Windows has been increasingly more resistent to changes to—even simple viewing of—important system files. I am pretty sure that when you thought you compressed NTLDR and the others, it just ignored it since they cannot be compressed and be functional. The BIOS, first, and second stage boot loaders do not understand file compression. I have not inspected a Win7 volume in great detail, but the NTFS architecture must be basically unchanged since my NTFS forensic analysis software (which I wrote for XP) still work.

More useful changes to that sentence would be along the lines of (those files) cannot be compressed on later Windows versions, or compressing them will prevent booting. —EncMstr (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe what you wrote to be true for Windows XP, however Windows 7 does not use NTLDR and it's first stage boot loader does appear to understand NTFS compression. You're right that Windows 7 does not allow you to compress certain system files, however booting to the Recovery Console does in fact allow you to run the Compact console utility against the entire drive's contents.

Rather than cast assumptions as fact, I recommend you try this for yourself in a VM with an evaluation version of Windows 7 or Server 2008 R2. A simple trial install, followed by running COMPACT /C /S /A X:\ in the Recovery Console Command Prompt will be sufficient. 50.92.82.109 (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)