Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux

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

  • #91
    Hmm I have a hard time believing this. The 'native' implementation of NTFS on windows 7 is much much slower than my ext4 partition with Ubuntu 10.10.

    I have made a couple of tests with my new Crucial C300 256 Gb SSD, and the ext4 is super fast on this drive. Even though I only have SATA II, I get read speeds up to 290 MB/sek, which is almost three times as fast as I get in windows 7.

    I really doubt that they managed to make a feature complete ntfs implementation that much better than windows' native ntfs implementation.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by jcgeny View Post
      i had some big troubles with ntfs drives when i used the 512 byte sector hard-drive , i have jumped to 4096 byte sector hard-drive mostly because that is the size wiwi like to use for formatting . then i do not regret it at all .
      [i have 6 2To drive of them , that are not very fast and 2 ssd 64Go for wiwi and fedora]

      i use Auslogics Disk Defrag and Defraggler , that are both very good for defrags
      AFAIK you should NOT defrag SSD's. Even though they seem defragmented with the tools, they are not. Keep in mind that the SSD drives uses very advanced algorithms to place the data in a logical order uniformly spread out on the SSD. In contrast to a HDD, the data needs not to be placed continuously on the disk and hence, defragmentation does nothing but harme (defragmentation will even not place the data, since the SSD will decide where to put it anyway).

      EDIT:
      Well it seems that you are indeed not defragmenting the SSD's My mistake.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Wyatt View Post
        1. You just provided your use case while denying it exists. Fancy.
        2. You're incredibly wrong. My god, I just have no words.
        3. Reinstalling is unrelated to a filesystem maintaining its integrity. (As you didn't bother to mention a filesystem problem or the actions you attempted to repair it, I'm assuming that none existed and you simply lack education in the basic tenets of logic.)
        4. In which you make it obvious that you're a snot-nosed brat with no idea what he's talking about.

        Epilogue: You realise NTFS has been around for more than a decade, right? 5 and 6 are surprisingly correct (if lifted directly from other posts in this thread), but crapping on NTFS in your ignorance is rather uncouth. Though I find the use of Windows in any application hilarious at best (embedded is great-- love the BSOD vending machines; comedy gold), you cannot deny that NTFS has been widely deployed in almost every sort of environment imaginable (inside our atmosphere). That it's still capable of functioning at anything approaching a modern level (even bearing in mind the various versions) is nothing short of impressive.

        Your disdain almost certainly comes unfounded from the position of one who is not a programmer and knows nothing of the craft. You should stop making words now.
        >>1. No one needs NTFS driver - people usually use it to access stuff on microsht or repair it. With linux box. No need for 10x access.
        >1. You just provided your use case while denying it exists. Fancy.
        It is WINDOWS machines that are repaired.

        >> 2. NTFS permission system is a cumbersome joke! Linux 888 is so simplistic and efficient!
        >2. You're incredibly wrong. My god, I just have no words._
        Oh, I must be so wrong, typing those cacls in cmd or clicking my way through the permissions and be happy it works somehow, when on my linux machines chmod/chown or right click fantastically are efficient. Linux file permissions are DREAM, FACE IT.

        >>3.3. Consider the efficiency - with ext4 I have never ever had to reinstall - the filesystem ALWAYS recovered safely. In ntfs and windows xp times I have been reinstalling it on monthly basis.
        >3. Reinstalling is unrelated to a filesystem maintaining its integrity.
        WOW, what a noob! I tell him NTFS f!cks up my data and is unable to store even metadata properly, while ext3/4 journal everything and he insists it is unrelated.
        Try to defragment and hit reset button!

        >>4. NTFS has badblocks... lols!
        >4.In which you make it obvious that you're a snot-nosed brat with no idea what he's talking about.
        Another "masterpiece" of yours! Badblocks are to be handled ONLY by the device itself.
        1. Badblocks DO NOT belong to filesystem
        2. Drive logic is ony responsible for transparent badblock
        -- detection
        -- recovery
        -- relocation
        3. For gods sake, there is SMART and it is more than enough to handle that.
        One can also use SpinRite or Victoria to detect possibly faulty hardware, but it is unrelated to FS.
        The utility you mentioned is only a simple tool to test each sector by writing and reading from it. It is unrelated to FS.

        Ext does not store USELESS badblock data, unlike NT. Why? Because it IS DRIVE LEVEL. What happens FS marks block as BAD and device simply REMAPS it already? Yes - that "LOGICAL" bad block is now actually USEABLE, because its REMAPPED by DEVICE. Yet NTFS plays dumb-arse, just like FATTY.

        Epiloge: NTFS has been around windows systems, that are USELESS. Ext has been around for decade (since birth of linux kernel?) and is most polished and most universal fs system around. It is not all-in-one FS, hence different FS exist (NILFS, BTRFS, REISER, JFS, XFS), but it is UNIVERSAL and strong. And if you want ext3 access from windows - there is a driver - use it.

        >> You should stop making words now.
        Thou shall sh!t up instead, please?
        Last edited by crazycheese; 06-26-2011, 07:43 AM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by tball View Post
          AFAIK you should NOT defrag SSD's. Even though they seem defragmented with the tools, they are not. Keep in mind that the SSD drives uses very advanced algorithms to place the data in a logical order uniformly spread out on the SSD. In contrast to a HDD, the data needs not to be placed continuously on the disk and hence, defragmentation does nothing but harme (defragmentation will even not place the data, since the SSD will decide where to put it anyway).

          EDIT:
          Well it seems that you are indeed not defragmenting the SSD's My mistake.
          actually, if an SSD shows fragmentation, it actually is fragmented. the algorithms you are talking about do exist but they actually cause more fragmentation. SSDs shouldn't be defragmented because they have a definite amount of times they can be written on (so the algorithm is used to make sure each cell of data is used as evenly as possible, to expand the lifespan of the drive), but also SSDs have a seek time of less than 1ms, so defragmenting does nothing but hurt your drive. it's also recommended to turn off indexing on SSDs, for the same reasons.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            Haha, awesome joke!

            [/LIST]
            Yeah, awesome joke:

            http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/s...squirming/2972

            http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Th...Botnet-626424/

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              No, it's on pair with Microsoft when you open all ports, run all services and every installed applications as well. If nothing happens then you have to find some trojan horse and run it.
              Sure, whatever you say.

              Comment


              • #97
                I notice how the title of your second link is "The First Linux Botnet". The fact that a botnet on Linux is unusual enough to be worth mentioning, not to mention be the very first one, should tell you just how much better Linux security is. Botnets are so common on windows that they aren't even worth mentioning.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by tball View Post
                  Hmm I have a hard time believing this. The 'native' implementation of NTFS on windows 7 is much much slower than my ext4 partition with Ubuntu 10.10.

                  I have made a couple of tests with my new Crucial C300 256 Gb SSD, and the ext4 is super fast on this drive. Even though I only have SATA II, I get read speeds up to 290 MB/sek, which is almost three times as fast as I get in windows 7.

                  I really doubt that they managed to make a feature complete ntfs implementation that much better than windows' native ntfs implementation.
                  have you installed update 007 ? it is a very good firmware update and it renders disk faster http://www.crucial.com/support/firmware.aspx
                  last advice : you need 006 before 007

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by movieman View Post
                    Unix filesystems have had ACL support for years and Linux has for about a decade. Practically no-one uses them because they're so easy to screw up in a manner which will make your system pretty much impossible to fix.
                    Not quite accurate. It's true, admins don't use them all that much, but they *are* used by some of the desktop frameworks, e.g to grant a user access to audio devices when they log in, then revoke it when they log out. More flexible than simply adding the user to the 'audio' group.

                    Still, for day-to-day operation, the simple group-based model works pretty well...

                    Comment


                    • The problem is that there was no weakness used except stupidity of the administrators that left default password or some services opened for "general public".

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                        Not quite accurate. It's true, admins don't use them all that much, but they *are* used by some of the desktop frameworks, e.g to grant a user access to audio devices when they log in, then revoke it when they log out. More flexible than simply adding the user to the 'audio' group.

                        Still, for day-to-day operation, the simple group-based model works pretty well...
                        He did say practically nobody, I think

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                          >>1. No one needs NTFS driver - people usually use it to access stuff on microsht or repair it. With linux box. No need for 10x access.
                          >1. You just provided your use case while denying it exists. Fancy.
                          It is WINDOWS machines that are repaired.

                          >> 2. NTFS permission system is a cumbersome joke! Linux 888 is so simplistic and efficient!
                          >2. You're incredibly wrong. My god, I just have no words._
                          Oh, I must be so wrong, typing those cacls in cmd or clicking my way through the permissions and be happy it works somehow, when on my linux machines chmod/chown or right click fantastically are efficient. Linux file permissions are DREAM, FACE IT.

                          >>3.3. Consider the efficiency - with ext4 I have never ever had to reinstall - the filesystem ALWAYS recovered safely. In ntfs and windows xp times I have been reinstalling it on monthly basis.
                          >3. Reinstalling is unrelated to a filesystem maintaining its integrity.
                          WOW, what a noob! I tell him NTFS f!cks up my data and is unable to store even metadata properly, while ext3/4 journal everything and he insists it is unrelated.
                          Try to defragment and hit reset button!

                          >>4. NTFS has badblocks... lols!
                          >4.In which you make it obvious that you're a snot-nosed brat with no idea what he's talking about.
                          Another "masterpiece" of yours! Badblocks are to be handled ONLY by the device itself.
                          1. Badblocks DO NOT belong to filesystem
                          2. Drive logic is ony responsible for transparent badblock
                          -- detection
                          -- recovery
                          -- relocation
                          3. For gods sake, there is SMART and it is more than enough to handle that.
                          One can also use SpinRite or Victoria to detect possibly faulty hardware, but it is unrelated to FS.
                          The utility you mentioned is only a simple tool to test each sector by writing and reading from it. It is unrelated to FS.

                          Ext does not store USELESS badblock data, unlike NT. Why? Because it IS DRIVE LEVEL. What happens FS marks block as BAD and device simply REMAPS it already? Yes - that "LOGICAL" bad block is now actually USEABLE, because its REMAPPED by DEVICE. Yet NTFS plays dumb-arse, just like FATTY.

                          Epiloge: NTFS has been around windows systems, that are USELESS. Ext has been around for decade (since birth of linux kernel?) and is most polished and most universal fs system around. It is not all-in-one FS, hence different FS exist (NILFS, BTRFS, REISER, JFS, XFS), but it is UNIVERSAL and strong. And if you want ext3 access from windows - there is a driver - use it.

                          >> You should stop making words now.
                          Thou shall sh!t up instead, please?
                          Please calm down.

                          Lots of enterprise Unix sysadmins, say that ACL is much more powerful than ordinary Unix read/right control. There are cases when you need ACL, and when 888 does not cut it.

                          Regarding ext3, it does not really protect your data well. SMART does not help. ext3 and NTFS are equally bad (or good) in protecting your data:
                          http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ho...ta-at-risk/169

                          "Dr. Prabhakaran found that ALL the file systems [NTFS, ext3, ReiserFS, JFS and XFS] shared
                          . . . ad hoc failure handling and a great deal of illogical inconsistency in failure policy . . . such inconsistency leads to substantially different detection and recovery strategies under similar fault scenarios, resulting in unpredictable and often undesirable fault-handling strategies.
                          . . .
                          We observe little tolerance to transient failures; . . . . none of the file systems can recover from partial disk failures, due to a lack of in-disk redundancy.




                          In a nutshell he found that the all the file systems have

                          . . . failure policies that are often inconsistent, sometimes buggy, and generally inadequate in their ability to recover from partial disk failures. "

                          Comment


                          • To make a long story short.
                            My data on NTFS is just as safe as my data on ext4.
                            By the way, my disk works OK and I do have backups.

                            Comment


                            • You're still giving the same:

                              Uses multiple strategies for exploitation, including brute-force username and password combinations
                              I'm not interested in trojan horses or something which tries to guess users passwords. Nothing stops people from making thousands of trojan horses for Linux, but the problem with the trojan horses is, you have to execute them somehow. On Windows it was enough to connect to the internet or LAN to get a virus. I don't know how something like this can have a place (maybe broken design, some bug...).

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                                Please calm down.

                                Lots of enterprise Unix sysadmins, say that ACL is much more powerful than ordinary Unix read/right control. There are cases when you need ACL, and when 888 does not cut it.

                                Regarding ext3, it does not really protect your data well. SMART does not help. ext3 and NTFS are equally bad (or good) in protecting your data:
                                http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ho...ta-at-risk/169

                                "Dr. Prabhakaran found that ALL the file systems [NTFS, ext3, ReiserFS, JFS and XFS] shared
                                . . . ad hoc failure handling and a great deal of illogical inconsistency in failure policy . . . such inconsistency leads to substantially different detection and recovery strategies under similar fault scenarios, resulting in unpredictable and often undesirable fault-handling strategies.
                                . . .
                                We observe little tolerance to transient failures; . . . . none of the file systems can recover from partial disk failures, due to a lack of in-disk redundancy.




                                In a nutshell he found that the all the file systems have

                                . . . failure policies that are often inconsistent, sometimes buggy, and generally inadequate in their ability to recover from partial disk failures. "
                                That article was from 2007, as was the research paper it was based on. The research paper looked at flaws that could compromise security in filesystems at the time, including filesystems like NTFS, XFS, and EXT3 amongst many others. The author then went on to propose a way to improve the EXT3 filesystem specifically so it could avoid these risks. As best as I can tell these improvements were incorporated into the EXT4 filesystem. In fact it seems the improvements were implemented in EXT4 almost immediately, since a talk about then-upcomming EXT4 a few months later discusses the improvements.

                                So rather than showing that all filesystems are equal, the article actually suggests that the EXT4 filesystem is superior in terms of data security (unless NTFS also implemented those features, which it might have).
                                Last edited by TheBlackCat; 06-27-2011, 05:23 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X