Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux

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

  • Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux

    Phoronix: Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux

    Coincidently there's some more file-system news after just writing about the EXT4 and Btrfs file-systems with the Linux 3.0 kernel. A Phoronix reader has pointed out that a developer at Tuxera is claiming their proprietary NTFS Linux kernel driver makes the Microsoft file-system the fastest choice under Linux. Reportedly this kernel driver that implements Microsoft NTFS support is about twice as fast as EXT4, the main Linux file-system of choice right now...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTU5Ng

  • #2
    This person should really make a ext4 driver with those algorithms that speed stuff up.

    It's not NTFS that's faster, it's a driver that's faster because of some algorithm.

    Maybe (because I'm not familiar with filesystems) it doesn't even matter that much and ext4 driver with those features beats that ntfs driver again.

    Comment


    • #3
      nice but how it will affect us? non windows users?

      Comment


      • #4
        Faster at doing what?

        I doubt NTFS is faster at everything while providing the same features as EXT4, XFS and Btrfs so bring on the benchmarks and show us!

        Comment


        • #5
          What about

          Tuxera-NTFS on Linux vs MS-NTFS on Win7?

          Comment


          • #6
            Indeed, I'd rather have a file system that is slower but doesn't eat your data for lunch. And yea, it seems that it's an algorithm that does that, although it could be specific to NTFS.

            Comment


            • #7
              A couple points.

              1. This is probably on an unfragmented filesystem. Given NTFS's tendency to fragment, this performance would never happen in the real world.

              2. NTFS doesn't have all that extra security code it needs to run. "Permissions? What's that?"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
                A couple points.

                1. This is probably on an unfragmented filesystem. Given NTFS's tendency to fragment, this performance would never happen in the real world.

                2. NTFS doesn't have all that extra security code it needs to run. "Permissions? What's that?"
                Uhh, you apparently know nothing about NTFS. NTFS is all about security. It has a more complex permission system than the Unix standard, with more than just read/write/execute, but 7 or 8 different permission types and it is all done via cascading ACLs, rather than the simplistic owner/group/everybody model. As a result, permission checking is slower and more complicated than on standard Unix. There is also per-file encryption and compression, which can further slow things down (if used).

                Comment


                • #9
                  "proprietary NTFS Linux kernel driver "

                  do i use a free and opensource system to install an proprietary file system??? LOOL!

                  i also use the radeon driver and not the catalyst.... those people should just shut up no one care about proprietary file system drivers...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by siride View Post
                    Uhh, you apparently know nothing about NTFS. NTFS is all about security. It has a more complex permission system than the Unix standard, with more than just read/write/execute, but 7 or 8 different permission types and it is all done via cascading ACLs, rather than the simplistic owner/group/everybody model. As a result, permission checking is slower and more complicated than on standard Unix. There is also per-file encryption and compression, which can further slow things down (if used).
                    Interesting. So the filesystem has a bunch of security features that a standard home user install of Windows will never use. If everybody is running an Admin account, then what's the point of permissions.

                    Maybe these features are actually used in an enterprise environment.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
                      Interesting. So the filesystem has a bunch of security features that a standard home user install of Windows will never use. If everybody is running an Admin account, then what's the point of permissions.
                      Admin doesn't quite work the same way on Windows as on Linux, at least with Vista and 7. It's not like root. You don't have permission, for example, to mess with files in Program Files and elsewhere like that, at least not without having to answer the UAC prompt, or more. Windows XP was more lax for admin users, though, I'll give you that.

                      Maybe these features are actually used in an enterprise environment.
                      Yes they are. And regardless of whether they actually got the use they should have gotten, they are nevertheless very baked into the filesystem. In fact the entire kernel (or "executive" to include the parts outside of the so-called microkernel) has an ACL system for all objects, not just files. They security model is very fancy. In fact, so fancy that people can't quite comprehend it and end up doing the equivalent of chmod 777 or turning of SELinux just so they can get things to work. And don't even get started on all of the compatibility hacks MS has had to introduce over the years to deal with programs (installers and games are the big offenders) that think they can just write to files anywhere (and with hardcoded paths, no less!).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                        Indeed, I'd rather have a file system that is slower but doesn't eat your data for lunch. And yea, it seems that it's an algorithm that does that, although it could be specific to NTFS.
                        This. Ext4 has a bunch of data-security features that slow it down. If this driver has all of those data-security features and is still faster, then I would be impressed. But if it doesn't have them, then the bragging is unfounded. Someone could make a much faster EXT4 implementation that also doesn't protect your data.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The Windows permission system is so different from the Linux one, that it's very hard to make a driver that can handle those permissions. So on NTFS by default, everyone gets read/write permission, and no one execute.

                          By the way, NTFS does not fragment much when using Linux on it. It is not the filesystem itself that fragments, it's Windows.

                          I have used an NTFS partition as /home on Linux on some computer, and after a couple of months Windows' defragment tool did not show 1 red line: all white/blue.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                            "proprietary NTFS Linux kernel driver "

                            do i use a free and opensource system to install an proprietary file system??? LOOL!

                            i also use the radeon driver and not the catalyst.... those people should just shut up no one care about proprietary file system drivers...
                            People that want stuff that works do. I use the OS radeon driver b/c it's fast enough for desktop/2d usage (I count OpenGL compositing WMs in the 2d category because that's effectively all they do). If I want to play games, I'll use Windows. But I could understand how someone who wants to use Linux and play games or use serious 3d software would want something that works rather than something that's libre. The benefit of libre is minimal except to the ideologues and developers, and only the latter matter in my mind.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The mentions of a "delayed metadata update model" immediately bring FreeBSD's soft updates to mind. I wonder how similar they are.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X