Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ext2Fsd: EXT3/EXT4 Support Now Works On Windows 8

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Ironically, ads on the Ext2Fsd website led to a malware being installed on my Windows 7 laptop. That suspect ad mimicked a download button.

    Comment


    • #17
      I used to use ext2fsd for everything for games and storage of large files, but Windows went kaput for some reason half a year ago, I finally reinstalled it last month and decided not to bother with ext2fsd because I was doubting whether it performed any better than NTFS, defragmenting isn't such a big deal when you have it as your screensaver (MyDefrag), and it was a little confusing trying to map the drives (possibly buggy).

      Originally posted by startzz View Post
      Well, the better solution would be using paragon ext driver, which actually IS a driver, and not like with ext2fsd, will integrate your ext partitions into windows system.
      I realize Windows itself isn't open source, but I would rather not add more closed source software, especially from a company I have never heard of before.

      Originally posted by Nille View Post
      Only if ZFS gets a Kernel Implementation and not the crappy FUSE debris. (Thats also fits for Windows, a ZFS driver would be awesome but not as a dokan driver)
      Have you been living under a rock? http://zfsonlinux.org/
      Kinda the same deal as with ext2fsd for me, I wasn't sure if it performed any better than ext4 and the compression wasn't very effective on games (which are already compressed), so I switched back to ext4. Before zfs, I also tried btrfs, it ended the same way, no noticeable benefit.

      Moral of the story is, unless you know you need something, just stick with what works.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by startzz View Post
        Well, the better solution would be using paragon ext driver
        Nope. It corrupts the filesystem. It's buggy as hell and sometimes reads garbage. The real problem is the garbage written to the filesystem structs though.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by chinoto View Post
          I realize Windows itself isn't open source, but I would rather not add more closed source software, especially from a company I have never heard of before.


          Have you been living under a rock?
          Exactly, you must be living under the rock if you dont know this company But its different in linux world - you cant know much, cause most of the software is like 1-2 mens hobby. Anyway, closed source software is the best software, because people want to keep their best algorithms as secret, and get money from it, and at the same time you can use their products, so its win-win, if you are not some kind of paranoic, that is afraid, that closed source software will eat him at night You know, even if stuff is free and open source, people arent writing it for free, so its like most of that stuff is dead anyways, very little programs goes with the world, the rest of it is still in 80's, because people need money to buy stuff to live, and if that job for money isnt developing linux programs, they dont have much time to make good products in their free time.

          And there is tons of unknown filesystems in linux because people dont have what to do better, not to mention, that most of those fs going through very exciting dev cycle - alpha stage -> dead project

          Comment


          • #20
            @startzz: I prefer open source, but I am willing to use closed source if it's sufficiently better or simply has no alternatives (eg, games, Flash, Skype, MyDefrag). The difference between me and Nilles, is that I found something that worked and was satisfied, so I had no reason to seek out something else. Nilles on the other hand seems to want a kernel implementation of zfs, so I would have expected his interest in it to lead him to the information that such a thing exists.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by chinoto View Post
              Nilles on the other hand seems to want a kernel implementation of zfs
              I don't care the fs but i need a fast file system and thats impossible with a userspace driver.

              Comment


              • #22
                I would not want to be the guy trying to port ZFS or Btrfs to Windows. I still use ext4 on my external hard drives just in case someone on Windows or OSX needs to access them.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by startzz View Post
                  Its just that no one really needs that stuff. Windows has its own ntfs, exfat, fat32 filesystems, its more than enough for everything. And there really is no point in supporting so many linux home-made quality filesystems, that are all the time in alpha state, and before it reaches stable, it goes obsolete. And its better to use the whole package, you will not see anyone driving a car, that is build from 10 different car manufacturers parts.
                  When SMR goes mainstream, people are going to dust off some of these so-called obsolete file systems. Additionally variety and exprimentation are important sources of information as to what works in a filesystem use case.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Addionally the same multipicity of drivers on windows could give us cheaper SSD's. NTFS really isn't built for the contraints of flash, so manufactuers add fancy controllers to hide it behind a scsi interface, instead of having cheap drives that a flash fileystem can interact with on a more direct level (read/write blocks, free, wear leveleing, etc )

                    The lack of filesystem diversity in Windows means any new storage medium is pretty much forced to shoehorn itself into existing interfaces, wheras filesystem exprimenation would allow more suitible interface to be exposed for each sort of storage medium.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Nille View Post
                      I don't care the fs but i need a fast file system and thats impossible with a userspace driver.
                      Userspace vs kernel space is not some magical performance differential. Things like being in the kernel if they use a lot of immediate instructions that access the hardware so you can dodge system call context swaps. FUSE at least is designed to minimize the number of calls into the kernel driver part so the overhead isn't as significant. Same with dbus - you want to be in the kernel to avoid context swaps.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X