>>>Hello All,
>>>
>>>I have a multi-user Foxpro for Windows 2.6 app that has its data on an NT server....Does it matter if the NT Server Partition is NTFS or FAT....Are there pros and cons to each....
>>
>>
>>NTFS is generally preferable - it allocates disk space in smaller clusters, has a more reliable directory structure, finer control of file access, and can allocate a larger partition than FAT.
>
>Make two partitions. Make the first one FAT for the OS. That way
>it can be accessed easily after a crash. The second for data should
>be NTFS. This is what MS recommends. Also having two partitions makes
>upgrading drives very easy in the future.

Actually, with the right tools like ERD Commander Pro, accessing NTFS partitions is just as easy. The advantages in security and robustness of the NTFS partition data structures far outweighs the slight performance advantage of the swap file on FAT, and with an eye towards Win2K, AD, among other things, requires an NTFS partition; Remote and encrypted storage is handled natively by NTFS, and file level compression and sub-cluster file allocation pays off with lots of small files. File open performance degradation with overloaded directories is far gentler due to the index mechanism used to maintain the directories. Random file access performance is notiucably better under NTFS. NTFS is subject to fewer viral attacks, and isn't hackable just buu inserting a DOS boot disk.

IOW, I use NTFS whereever possible.