FILE SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE: FAT VS NTFS VS EXT4

FILE SYSTEMS
ARCHITECTURE: FAT VS
NTFS VS EXT4
NAME: ANUSHA ASHRAF
ROLL NUMBER: 23L51A7205
COURSE/BRANCH: 2nd
YEAR 2nd
SEM [AI&DS]
SUBJECT:OS LAB
INSTITUTION: SHADAN WOMEN’S COLLEGE OF
ENGG.&TECH.
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 30-04-2025

1 | P a g e
Abstract
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of three widely used file
system architectures: FAT (File Allocation Table), NTFS (New
Technology File System), and ext4 (Fourth Extended File System). The
objective is to evaluate their structural design, core functionalities,
performance metrics, and compatibility with different operating systems.
File systems play a crucial role in managing how data is stored, accessed,
and organized on storage media. Understanding their architecture is
essential for system administrators, software developers, and IT
professionals to make informed decisions regarding data storage strategies.
The methodology employed involves both theoretical and practical
analysis. Technical specifications and documentation were reviewed to
understand the internal workings of each file system, while benchmarking
tests were considered to assess real-world performance in terms of speed,
reliability, and data integrity. Specific criteria such as journaling, file size
limits, partition support, security features, and system overhead were
compared.
Key findings show that FAT is an older, simpler file system best suited for
removable drives and legacy systems due to its broad compatibility, but it
lacks advanced features such as journaling and access control lists. NTFS,
predominantly used in Windows environments, supports file compression,
encryption, permissions, and journaling, making it ideal for enterprise-
level applications. On the other hand, ext4, the default file system for
many Linux distributions, offers high performance, large file and volume
support, journaling, and efficient allocation methods like extents.
In conclusion, while FAT remains useful for basic, cross-platform needs,
NTFS and ext4 provide superior performance and data integrity. NTFS is
optimal for Windows-based systems requiring security and reliability,
whereas ext4 is a robust solution for Linux systems needing scalability and
performance. Selecting the appropriate file system should be based on the
specific operating environment, security needs, and workload
characteristics.

2 | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENT
4. Introduction...............................................................[3]
4.1 Context
4.2 Problem Statement
4.3 Objectives
4.4 Scope
5. Background Information...........................................[5]
5.1 Theoretical Foundation
5.2 Literature Review
6. Methodology..............................................................[7]
6.1 Approach
6.2 Data Sources
6.3 Tools and Technologies
7. Main
Content......................................................................[9]
7.1 Data Structures and Their Applications
7.2 Algorithms o Real-World Applications
7.3 Diagrams and Visual Aids
8. Challenges and Limitations.....................................[14]
8.1 Critical Analysis
8.2 Potential Issues
9. Future Directions....................................................[16]
9.1 Emerging Trends
9.2 Research Opportunities
10. Conclusion...........................................................[18]
10.1 Summary
10.2 Final Thoughts
11. References...........................................................[20]

3 | P a g e
4. Introduction
Context
In the field of computer science and engineering, file systems are
fundamental components that dictate how data is stored, retrieved,
and managed on storage devices. Every operating system relies on a
file system to organize and control data, ensuring efficiency,
accessibility, and data integrity. As data storage demands continue to
grow in complexity, the choice of an appropriate file system has
become increasingly critical. Among the most widely used file
systems are FAT (File Allocation Table), NTFS (New Technology
File System), and ext4 (Fourth Extended File System), each offering
unique advantages and limitations depending on the intended
application and operating environment. Understanding the underlying
architecture and operational mechanisms of these file systems is
essential for optimizing system performance and ensuring reliable
data handling.
Problem Statement
Despite the availability of numerous file systems, selecting the most
appropriate one remains a challenge for many users and
organizations. This is due to the vast differences in features such as
file size limits, security, compatibility, performance, and fault
tolerance. For instance, FAT lacks journaling and security features,
NTFS is primarily optimized for Windows, and ext4, though
powerful, is tailored for Linux. This report seeks to address the
challenge of selecting a suitable file system based on technical
requirements, usage scenarios, and platform compatibility.
Objectives
The primary objectives of this report are:
• To explore the architectural differences and core features of
FAT, NTFS, and ext4 file systems.

4 | P a g e
• To compare their performance, security, and reliability across
various use cases.
• To assist readers in understanding which file system is best
suited for specific operating systems and applications.
Scope
This report will focus exclusively on FAT (including FAT32), NTFS,
and ext4 file systems. It will examine their technical structures,
strengths, weaknesses, and practical applications. Other file systems
such as exFAT, HFS+, APFS, or Btrfs will not be covered in detail.
Additionally, the report will not delve into implementation-level
source code or kernel-level programming details but will maintain a
system-level analysis suitable for academic and professional
evaluation.

5 | P a g e
5. Background Information
Theoretical Foundation
A file system is a method and data structure used by operating
systems to control how data is stored and retrieved. Without a file
system, stored data would be a large block with no way to distinguish
individual pieces. File systems provide a structured way to manage
data by organizing it into files and directories.
Key concepts and terminology include:
• Block: The smallest unit of data storage in a file system, usually
a few kilobytes in size.
• Cluster: A group of sectors on a disk that form the smallest unit
of space that can be allocated to hold a file.
• Metadata: Information about files such as name, size,
creation/modification date, permissions, etc.
• Journaling: A technique used to improve file system reliability
by keeping a log (journal) of changes before applying them.
• File Allocation Table (FAT): A simple file system that uses a
table to keep track of file locations.
• NTFS (New Technology File System): A proprietary file
system developed by Microsoft with advanced features like file
permissions, encryption, and journaling.
• ext4 (Fourth Extended File System): A widely used file
system for Linux, offering high performance, journaling, and
backward compatibility with ext3.
Literature Review
Numerous studies and technical reviews have analyzed file systems in
terms of their structure, performance, and reliability. Research by
Tanenbaum (Modern Operating Systems) and Silberschatz et al.
(Operating System Concepts) has laid the theoretical groundwork for
understanding how file systems function in modern computing
environments. Performance benchmarking studies (e.g., by Phoronix
and Linux Journal) have compared FAT, NTFS, and ext4 under

6 | P a g e
various workloads, showing that ext4 generally performs better in
Linux environments, while NTFS excels in Windows systems.
Advancements in journaling techniques, space allocation algorithms,
and metadata management have significantly improved file system
performance over time. However, despite these advancements, there
remains a lack of comprehensive, platform-agnostic guidelines for
choosing between file systems. Moreover, cross-platform
performance trade-offs are not always clearly documented, especially
regarding compatibility and performance on dual-boot or virtualized
systems.
Gaps in Current Knowledge
While technical specifications and performance benchmarks exist,
there is limited research focusing on practical decision-making
criteria for real-world usage—especially in mixed-environment
systems where cross-compatibility is crucial. Also, emerging needs
such as SSD optimization, cloud-based file storage, and high-security
applications are not always addressed in existing literature, making it
essential to revisit and analyze these file systems in the context of
current and evolving technologies.

7 | P a g e
6. Methodology
Approach
This report adopts a comparative analytical approach to evaluate
the architectures and performance characteristics of the FAT, NTFS,
and ext4 file systems. Rather than implementing new systems or
performing live experiments, the study systematically analyzes
existing technical documentation, performance benchmarks, and
academic literature. The aim is to highlight architectural distinctions,
operational advantages, limitations, and optimal usage scenarios of
each file system.
The comparison is structured around several core criteria:
• File system structure and data management
• Performance (read/write speed, scalability)
• Security features (encryption, permissions)
• Fault tolerance and recovery (journaling, data integrity)
• Compatibility and portability
• Use case relevance (personal, enterprise, cross-platform)
Where applicable, findings from independent benchmarking tools and
real-world tests conducted by third parties are included to support the
analysis.
Data Sources
The data and insights for this report were gathered from a variety of
credible and authoritative sources, including:
• Academic textbooks such as Operating System Concepts
(Silberschatz et al.) and Modern Operating Systems
(Tanenbaum)
• Peer-reviewed journals and technical conference papers
• Official documentation from Microsoft and Linux kernel
developers
• Online technical resources including:
o Microsoft Docs (for NTFS specifications)

8 | P a g e
o Kernel.org and Linux man pages (for ext4)
o Published performance reports and benchmarks from
sources like Phoronix and TechSpot
• Developer forums, blogs, and community-contributed case
studies
Tools and Technologies
Although the report does not involve original software development
or testing, the following tools and technologies were referenced or
considered for understanding file system behavior and accessing
benchmark results:
• Benchmarking Tools: CrystalDiskMark, Bonnie++, FIO
(Flexible I/O Tester)
• Operating Systems: Windows 10/11 (for NTFS and FAT),
Ubuntu Linux (for ext4)
• File System Utilities:
o mkfs, fsck, tune2fs for ext4
o diskpart, chkdsk for NTFS/FAT
• Visualization and Reporting: Microsoft Excel, Google Sheets
for organizing comparison tables and graphs
• Documentation Platforms: GitHub, official OS documentation,
and Linux kernel archives
This multi-source, analytical approach ensures a well-rounded and
unbiased comparison that reflects real-world applicability and
theoretical soundness.
Here’s a structured Main Content section for a Lab Presentation on
File Systems Architecture: FAT vs NTFS vs ext4, presented by
Kausar Jahan (AIDS), covering key subtopics with suggested
diagrams and visual aids.

9 | P a g e
7. MAIN CONTENT
1. Data Structures and Their Applications
Understanding how each file system organizes and manages data is
critical. Below are the fundamental data structures used:
▪ FAT (File Allocation Table)
• Structure: Uses a simple table that keeps track of used and free
space.
• Directory Management: Linear directory structure.
• Limitations: Fragmentation, limited file and partition size.
▪ NTFS
• Structure: Uses the Master File Table (MFT) to store
metadata and file information.
• Features: Supports B-tree structures, security descriptors, and
transaction logs.
• Efficiency: Minimizes fragmentation with more intelligent
allocation.
▪ ext4
• Structure: Uses inode tables, extents, and journaling.
• Improvements over ext3: Delayed allocation, multiblock
allocation, faster file checking.
• Supports: Large volumes and files, high performance with
SSDs.
• File System Architecture Comparison Chart
A diagram showing how each file system organizes blocks,
inodes/MFT, and allocation tables.

10 | P a g e
2. Algorithms
File systems rely on several algorithms for performance, reliability,
and storage management.
▪ FAT
• Allocation Algorithm: Linked list–based; simple but inefficient
for large files.
• Search: Linear search through directory entries.
▪ NTFS
• Allocation Algorithm: B-tree structures optimize file and
metadata searches.
• Journaling Algorithm: Uses a redo log to protect against data
corruption.
▪ ext4
• Extents Algorithm: Allocates a range of contiguous blocks,
reducing fragmentation.

11 | P a g e
• Journaling: Ordered and writeback journaling modes to balance
performance and reliability.
• Block Allocation: Delayed allocation to optimize write
performance.
• Journaling Process Flow
Shows how journaling works in NTFS and ext4 to ensure file
system recovery.
3. Real-World Applications
File systems play a key role in both consumer and enterprise
environments.
▪ FAT
• Used in: USB drives, SD cards, legacy systems.
• Why: Simple, universally supported by nearly all OSes.
▪ NTFS
• Used in: Windows-based PCs, workstations, and servers.
• Features: File compression, disk quotas, encryption (EFS),
ACLs.

12 | P a g e
▪ ext4
• Used in: Linux-based systems, Android devices, servers.
• Why: Fast, robust, supports large files/volumes, excellent
journaling.
• Application Mapping Table
A chart showing where each file system is most commonly
used.
4. Performance and Compatibility Comparison
Feature FAT32 NTFS ext4
Max File Size 4 GB 16 TB
16 TB
(theoretical)
Max Volume Size
32 GB
(Windows)
256 TB 1 EB (theoretical)
Journaling No Yes Yes
Security
(Permissions)
No
Yes
(ACLs)
Yes (POSIX)
OS Compatibility Universal Windows Linux

13 | P a g e
• Bar graph showing Read/Write Speeds across the 2 file
systems using benchmark data.

14 | P a g e
8. Challenges and Limitations
Critical Analysis
While FAT, NTFS, and ext4 have each played significant roles in the
evolution of data storage, they all exhibit limitations that impact their
performance, compatibility, and scalability:
• FAT (including FAT32):
o Lack of Journaling: Offers no protection against data
corruption due to system crashes or power failures.
o Size Constraints: Maximum file size of 4 GB and
partition size of 32 GB (on Windows) severely limit its use
in modern environments.
o Security Deficiencies: No built-in file-level security
features or permission settings.
o Fragmentation: High fragmentation rate affects
performance as data size increases.
• NTFS:
o Platform Dependency: Designed specifically for
Windows; write support on Linux is possible but not
always reliable.
o Overhead: Advanced features like journaling and access
control increase system resource usage, which may not be
ideal for low-powered devices.
o Closed-Source Nature: As a proprietary file system, full
transparency and customization are limited compared to
open-source systems.
• ext4:
o Limited Windows Compatibility: Not natively supported
by Windows, requiring third-party tools for access.
o Journaling Overhead: Although beneficial for data
integrity, journaling can slightly reduce write performance.
o Not Ideal for Large-Scale Enterprise Use: Lacks some
modern features offered by newer Linux file systems like
Btrfs or ZFS, such as native snapshotting or
checksumming.

15 | P a g e
Potential Issues in Real-World Application
• Cross-Platform Compatibility: A major issue when using file
systems across Windows, Linux, and macOS environments. For
example, NTFS is limited on macOS and ext4 is inaccessible
without third-party tools on Windows.
• Performance Bottlenecks: Older file systems like FAT struggle
with large files or high-speed storage devices such as SSDs.
• Data Corruption and Recovery: Non-journaled systems like
FAT provide no protection against unexpected shutdowns,
which is risky for mission-critical applications.
• Security Risks: File systems without encryption or access
control features (e.g., FAT) expose sensitive data to
unauthorized access.
• Upgrade and Migration Issues: Transitioning from one file
system to another often requires reformatting and can lead to
data loss if not handled properly.

16 | P a g e
9. Future Directions
Emerging Trends
As data storage needs evolve rapidly with the rise of cloud
computing, big data, IoT, and high-speed solid-state drives (SSDs),
file systems must adapt to meet new demands in terms of speed,
scalability, reliability, and security. Several emerging trends are
shaping the future of file system design:
• Next-Generation File Systems: File systems like Btrfs (B-tree
File System) and ZFS are gaining popularity in Linux and
enterprise environments due to advanced features like snapshots,
checksumming, built-in RAID, and self-healing capabilities.
• Cloud-Native File Systems: With increased adoption of cloud
platforms, systems like Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) and
Google Filestore are designed specifically for scalable,
distributed storage over networks.
• SSDs and NVMe Optimization: File systems are being re-
engineered to optimize for high-speed storage media. F2FS
(Flash-Friendly File System) is an example designed for
NAND-based storage to reduce write amplification and latency.
• Encrypted and Secure File Systems: As cybersecurity
becomes a top priority, there's a growing focus on file systems
with built-in encryption, integrity checks, and secure
deletion.
• Cross-Platform Solutions: New efforts aim to bridge the gap
between operating systems. The adoption of exFAT by both
Microsoft and the Linux Foundation is a step toward better
interoperability.
Research Opportunities
There are several areas that warrant further research and development
to advance the field of file system technology:
• Hybrid File Systems: Investigating systems that can
dynamically adapt to the hardware type (e.g., hybrid SSD/HDD

17 | P a g e
environments) and workload patterns for optimized
performance.
• AI-Powered File Management: Leveraging machine learning
to predict access patterns, optimize caching, and automate data
classification and archiving.
• Fault-Tolerant and Self-Healing Mechanisms: Developing
more efficient methods for automatic error correction, data
redundancy, and system recovery without compromising
performance.
• Quantum Storage Systems: As quantum computing advances,
new file systems may be required to handle non-binary data
models and quantum storage architectures.
• Lightweight File Systems for Embedded and IoT Devices:
Designing ultra-efficient systems for constrained environments,
where storage and computational resources are minimal.
• Sustainability and Energy-Efficient Storage: Investigating
how file systems can contribute to reducing power consumption
in data centers and large-scale storage systems.

18 | P a g e
10. Conclusion
Summary
This report has presented a comprehensive comparison of three
major file systems—FAT, NTFS, and ext4—focusing on their
internal architectures, operational mechanisms, performance
metrics, and real-world applications. FAT, though simple and
widely compatible, suffers from limitations in security, scalability,
and fault tolerance. NTFS, a robust and feature-rich file system
designed for Windows, offers advanced capabilities like journaling,
access control, and encryption but is less versatile across non-
Windows platforms. ext4, the standard in most Linux
environments, provides high performance, journaling, and support
for large volumes, making it ideal for modern systems.
The analysis has highlighted the strengths and trade-offs of each
file system, emphasizing that the choice often depends on the
intended use case, operating system, and required features. While
FAT may suit portable drives, NTFS is better for enterprise-level
Windows systems, and ext4 excels in open-source and Linux-based
deployments.
Final Thoughts
File systems form the backbone of digital storage, directly
influencing system performance, data integrity, and user
experience. As technology continues to advance—ushering in
faster storage hardware, larger data sets, and new computing
paradigms—the demand for more intelligent, secure, and adaptive
file systems will only grow. Understanding existing file systems
like FAT, NTFS, and ext4 is essential not just for systems
engineers and developers, but for anyone involved in managing or
designing digital infrastructure.

19 | P a g e
In the broader context of computing, the evolution of file systems
represents a continuous pursuit of efficiency, reliability, and
accessibility. As emerging technologies such as cloud computing,
AI, and quantum storage reshape how we interact with data, file
systems will remain a critical foundation that supports innovation
and progress.

20 | P a g e
11. References (APA Style)
1. Silberschatz, A., Galvin, P. B., & Gagne, G. (2018).
Operating System Concepts (10th ed.). Wiley.
2. Tanenbaum, A. S., & Bos, H. (2014). Modern Operating
Systems (4th ed.). Pearson.
3. Microsoft Corporation. (n.d.). NTFS File System.
Retrieved from https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
us/windows/win32/fileio/ntfs-technical-reference
4. The Linux Foundation. (n.d.). ext4 – Linux Kernel
Documentation. Retrieved from
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/filesystems/ext4.h
tml
5. Phoronix Media. (2021). Linux File-System Performance
Tests: EXT4 vs. Btrfs vs. F2FS vs. XFS. Retrieved from
https://www.phoronix.com/
6. TechSpot. (2020). File System Performance
Comparison: NTFS vs. ext4 vs. FAT32. Retrieved from
https://www.techspot.com/
7. Bovet, D. P., & Cesati, M. (2005). Understanding the
Linux Kernel (3rd ed.). O'Reilly Media.
8. Tso, T. (2008). ext4: The Next Generation of the ext3
File System. Proceedings of the Linux Symposium,
Ottawa, Canada.
9. Apple Inc. (n.d.). File System Basics: Apple File System
(APFS). Retrieved from https://support.apple.com/
10. Google Inc. (2020). Introduction to exFAT: File
System for Flash Storage. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/

FILE SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE: FAT VS NTFS VS EXT4

More Related Content

Similar to FILE SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE: FAT VS NTFS VS EXT4 (20)

More from anushaashraf20 (16)

Recently uploaded (20)

FILE SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE: FAT VS NTFS VS EXT4