Talk:NTFS

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Intellectual property restrictions? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  data deduplication? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  wrong link 

message: :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was lower before Windows XP Professional but is the same until Windows 7 or has it always been the same but it is outdated/using an outdated ref Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Maximum clusters 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Linux drivers disallow unsafe volume changes, to avoid corruption 

message: 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)
thread_title: File:NTPermissions.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Xbox 360 incompatability 

message: With windows 10 (unknown what build introduced it), it's now possible to select between 4 compression levels/algorithms. The change has not made it to the GUI (and may never do), but compact.exe - the command-line program used to modify NTFS per-file compression since NT 3.51 - has now gotten some new switches. "/EXE" (totally misnamed) can be used as /EXE:XPRESS4K (default since NT 3.51), /EXE:XPRESS8K, /EXE:XPRESS16K, and finally the most interesting /EXE:LZX (most compression).
The reason I added this in the Talk section is I have not tested compatibility of these new compression "modes" with earlier versions of Windows, which is something I feel is required to verify, but found it to be a such a noteworthy improvement it deserved to be documented. If an editor gets a chance to test it, please add the info to the page.
(additionally, this is what Microsoft use in Windows 10 for the "Compact OS", but this fact probably belongs in a different article). 83.252.234.134 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now found an external source of information, https://github.com/ebiggers/ntfs-3g-system-compression, stating "It is not built directly into NTFS but rather is implemented using reparse points.". If this information is correct (and I see no reason it would be incorrect), it is not NTFS data compression as such, but reparse-tag handler(s). This makes it a bit harder to categorize. 83.252.234.134 (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  And now checking with a earlier Windows system, it's verified that this data is compressed and stored in an alternate data stream named "WofCompressedData". 83.252.234.134 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New compression methods in Windows 10 

message: Per WP:RS, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."  This is an example of a source lacking either attribute TEDickey (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, and have moved the phrase to the talkquote box above.  I kept the word proprietary, because that is certainly verifiable.  As for "undocumented at the raw bytes level", well, that's pretty much the layman's definition of "proprietary", yes?  Finally, "subject to change - even within Service Packs of the same OS version", well, I would hope so... it's called a "hotfix", and that's hardly notable, (per WP:NOTE), especially for an article lead section. Groll†ech (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of non-RS 

message: Back from the archives, now with an answer:
:I use Linux as my main OS and use the NTFS-3G-driver to read and write NTFS-formatted partitions when I need to. When I create a folder ending with a . (dot) in Linux, which works fine, a computer running windows won't open them (tested with Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Vista). I don't see that limitation in the article. Can someone please confirm this and add it to the article? --79.212.138.66 (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folders ending with a . (dot) 

message: That is, WP:CRYSTAL.  Claiming that something will happen, when it is untested, unannounced, etc., matches the edits made. TEDickey (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculative interpretation of commit messages 

message: Western Digital and Toshiba on at least some of their 3TB external drives will use logical sector sizes of 4KB for a partition and format it as NTFS, this allows a 3TB HD with a single NTFS formatted partition with an MBR layout to exist and operate on XP. Microsofts tools simply do not allow creating this type of setup. 70.125.54.27 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partitions on an MBR formatted disk can be greater than 2TB. 

message: At MFT disambiguation page there is a link to: Master File Table which points to Master File Table, but it doesn't work, so user looking for appropriate topic can't find it. Please fix it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenorb (talk • contribs) 10:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master File Table link points to nowhere. 

message: Hi, I'm new to editing any pages on Wikipedia.  I couldn't figure out how to send a private message to EncMstr so I decided instead to try to use the talk page of NTFS.
There are a lot of inaccuracies in this page and I am willing to help out to improve the page.  I'm an NTFS developer at Microsoft, and having worked on NTFS for 8 years, I'm an expert.  I'm a first hand source of information.  However Wikipedia requires tangible references, and I totally acknowledge that, so I may not actually be able to contribute much if I can't find some sort of reference that agrees with me.
Anyway my first attempted correction was that NTFS uses B-trees for its directories, not B+ trees.  I removed the references to Russinovich's article because it was unfortunately incorrect.  Russinovich knows a lot about NTFS, but he is not an expert, and he can make mistakes.  That article was also written a long time ago.  To Russinovich's credit, in the latest Windows Internals (Sixth Edition), chapter 12, under the heading "Indexing", the text correctly describes directories as B-trees.  I will also point out that Wikipedia's own article on B-trees lists NTFS as an example file system that uses them, while the article on B+ trees lists other file systems (such as ReFS) but not NTFS; hence Wikipedia is internally inconsistent on this detail.
EncMstr mentioned to look in the Linux NTFS source code, where it purportedly describes the structure as a B+ tree.  Unfortunately I cannot look at the Linux NTFS source code due to my job.  If it describes NTFS directories as a B+ trees then that's incorrect.
Just trying to help out.  Appreciate the time you guys put into this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigbarkhouse (talk • contribs) 07:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Update:  Decided to take a look at the NTFS page again (May 2018) and noticed somebody did finally correct it to B-tree like I had originally tried to do.  I wish you would accept information from first-hand sources, I mean I understand why you are reluctant to, but it just dooms the page to be forever inaccurate and incomplete.  For instance that new stuff added about OneDrive and "recursive linking"... that has me puzzled, since there's no recursion anywhere, I just have no idea what you're trying to describe with that.  I could tell you the important details, since I worked on it, but it is established you won't accept such information.  Yet that paragraph about OneDrive somehow stays on the page when it is all speculation and doesn't link to a single reference.  I thought you had a policy of requiring references?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigbarkhouse (talk • contribs) 08:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Updated, with sources. Think this version makes a little bit more sense. Fingers crossed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directories are B-trees 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on NTFS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723180729/https://www.auscert.org.au/render.html?it=7967 to https://www.auscert.org.au/render.html?it=7967
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041114032240/http://www.codeproject.com/datetime/dstbugs.asp to http://www.codeproject.com/datetime/dstbugs.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110210152004/http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name=goflex-software&vgnextoid=11c1fab114b48210VgnVCM1000001a48090aRCRD to http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name=goflex-software&vgnextoid=11c1fab114b48210VgnVCM1000001a48090aRCRD
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100810084414/http://smokingapples.com/software/tutorials/snow-leopards-hidden-ntfs-readwrite-support/ to http://smokingapples.com/software/tutorials/snow-leopards-hidden-ntfs-readwrite-support/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.free-av.com/en/tools/11/avira_ntfs4dos_personal.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NTFS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123140513/https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh847764(v=wps.620).aspx to https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh847764(v=wps.620).aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: > "Windows Vista adds mandatory access control info to DACLs."
False. Mandatory Access Control (now generally called Windows Integrity Control) is implemented as a new Access Control Entry (ACE) type in the System Access Control List (SACL) - not the Discretionary Access Control List (DACL).
> "The ... system access control list (SACL), defines which interactions with the file or folder are to be audited ..."
Incomplete per above.
TC 04:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  False statement 

message: Shouldn't we use KiB instead of KB (respectively for MB, GB, ...) in many cases regarding sizes? I know that Microsofts NTFS site regarding cluster sizes also uses kilo units (e.g. KB instead of KiB) but I guess that this is inaccurate. For example: The maximum cluster size should be 2 MiB instead of 2 MB, right?
Regards, Hauke-stieler (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree – the use of just "KB", "MB", ... for binary kilos, megs, ... is outdated and ambiguous. Where binary prefixes are useful (like here) these should be replaced by KiB, MiB, ... Where binary prefixes are less useful decimal prefixes should be used in general. --Zac67 (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Disagree – binary "KB", "MB", etc., are the only valid forms. The SI's imposition of decimalisation on computing is a corruption of computer science, and just because they're besotted with base-10 doesn't give them a right to redefine the units of binary computing. 209.93.234.169 (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your disagreement (read: Agree with OP) – Even if binary "KB", "MB", etc. were used to start, all that we accomplish by continuing to use that is ambiguity with other units of measurement. The SI's redefining "KB" and "MB" to powers of 1000 B is, in my opinion, good for consistency. Also, while I do believe that binary computing is still ideal, I sometimes see decimal computing used, e.g. by storage manufacturers. For disambiguation, we should count powers of 1024 using a modified prefix, and "KiB", "MiB", etc. is a great way to do that. —Rain Shinotsu (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

text: I also disagree with you and therefore Agree with OP. Computer science's imposition of binarisation on SI units is a corruption of the metric system, and just because they're besotted with base-2 doesn't give them a right to redefine the units of decimal SI prefixes. These metric prefixes predate their use in computing by decades to centuries. AwaweWiki (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Agree binary units are the most unambiguous Wqwt (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of KB/KiB, MB/MiB, etc. 

message: The article mentions namespaces, specifically a "Win32 namespace" and a "POSIX namespace" and a "DOS namespace", but does not explain what they are (as far as I can see). – Tea2min (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are namespaces? 

message: In a number of places it is said that NTFS keeps timestamps in UTC, or that Windows maintains UTC time (and so allows NTFS timestamps to be UTC.)
Is this correct?  Note, UTC involves leap seconds, while UT does not.
Windows does not appear to have any knowledge of leap seconds, so the UTC claim is a bit curious. 
NTFS time stamps and/or the Windows FileTimeToSystemTime conversion code (and vice versa: SystemTimeToFileTime) do not appear to provide leap second support in any way.
More likely, it's a misunderstanding, based on default time services providing UTC time, which Windows then maintains as UT and as best it can until the next time synch takes place.Athulin (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  UTC vs UT 

message: By observation with how Windows 10 21H1 creates/amends the NTFS boot sector, the "Total Sectors" value at offset 0x28 is actually "The partition size in sectors minus 1". Simon Arlott (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total sectors 

message: WP:COMPUNITS is clear  with only a few narrow exceptions, none of which apply here. The article uses these units in one meaning only, however both  and  have reverted my improvements back to revisions that mix the units needlessly, often even in the same sentences:
*"256 TiB − 64 KB"
*"16 EiB – 1 KB (format)"
*"8 PB – 2 MiB"
As the reliable sources for this article all use the non-ibi (the traditional kilo/mega/giga/tera/peta) units, it does not make sense to cause confusion for our readers by having these mixed units (which are referring to the same unit of measure; there is no binary/decimal ambiguity here). The only alleged ambiguity that exists now for our readers is why we're using two different unit formats for the same meaning, sometimes within the same sentence/use. In addition to WP:COMPUNITS and the sources in this article, see here for further discussion on why the units generally should not be used on Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COMPUNITS does define exceptions to the cited rule that you commonly omit – don't get started, I don't think that any of them apply here. The problem with your edits is that you removed the clearness created by the IEC prefixes and replaced them by ambiguous-to-misleading kilo, mega, giga, ... You cannot expect the casual reader to know that these prefixes carry a non-decimal meaning here. I did try to tell you but apparently you weren't reading. As noted previously, WP:COMPUNITS clearly states (emphasis mine) Do not assume that the binary or decimal meaning of prefixes will be obvious to everyone. Explicitly specify the meaning of k and K as well as the primary meaning of M, G, T, etc. in an article ( is a convenient helper). Consistency within each article is desirable, but the need for consistency may be balanced with other considerations. Linking to megabyte isn't sufficient because the linked article only discusses the ambiguity and cannot clear it up. So, please add such a specification for the article in general and make sure you mark any decimal exceptions to that appropriately. --Zac67 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you explain how the portions I cited above are less ambiguous?  I'm not sure if you just don't understand the topic that you're revert warring over, but there are no exceptions within this article. There is only one in use. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The mixing is bad and needs fixing, no question (as there's no good reason for mixing). Possibly, the editor had the impression that capital K isn't ambiguous, but that isn't important. But even you might agree that IEC prefixes are not ambiguous. Removing them altogether fixes the mixing problem, but increases ambiguity. All that is required when removing the IEC prefixes is to explicitly specify the meaning of the ambiguous k/K/M/G/T/P prefixes. You state that there are no exceptions in the article, so a single note at the top should suffice. When you are the one making the change it's your task to ensure that. You cannot expect other editors to include the note, or to check the article for any exceptions (which you seem to have done already). And for the record: I wasn't the one edit warring, you were. (In accordance with WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted, and then you failed to discuss but started reverting yet again.) --Zac67 (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely not. There is no requirement that all improvements be done at the same time. Otherwise people making minor spelling corrections could be reverted because they left a grammar issue unfixed. Or any other issue, for that matter (see WP:NOTFINISHED). It's patent nonsense, and just you searching for an excuse for your behavior. My edit was an improvement for our reader as it removed any ambiguity over whether there were different meanings for the units expressed, especially for the three examples I gave above. Now our readers will need to dig into the sources to determine if there's actually two units in use, or if people (us) editing this article are just too stupid to use one (the one being used in our sources) and be done with it.  Typical abusive behavior answer. As you have no valid reason for your reverts, you're just reaching now. Anyone reading this can see this for what it is: it's not that I didn't do something I was supposed to do, it's that you would rather revert war than do the thing you just described. You're not here to create an encyclopedia, you're here to push your POV. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  IEC unit shenanigans 

message: Looks like we have some typos in the infobox. In the "Max. volume size" and "Max. file size" fields there is a mix of minus signs and dashes, and I'm pretty sure they are all supposed to be one or the other. For example, is "264 clusters − 1 cluster" supposed to be (264 minus 1) (in which case why doesn't it say "264−1 clusters") or is it supposed to be the range of values from 1 to 264 (in which case why isn't it in ascending order)? GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand that box, those are all "-" minus signs. Maximum xyz indicates an upper limit, not a range of choices; this is reflected in the source as well. --Zac67 (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minus signs and dashes in the infobox