Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Testing The "Pretty Beefy" Btrfs Changes In Linux 3.2

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

  • #11
    I don't need NTFS.
    I just would like to know how the linux filesystems stack up against NTFS.
    Is NTFS slow? Fast? The same?
    It's something that's always just interested me.

    Comment


    • #12
      The in-kernel NTFS driver is too incomplete to even run most FS benchmarks, and comparing a kernel driver to a FUSE driver isn't really comparing the filesystems. That's probably why you don't see too many comparisons of the kind you're asking about.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
        The in-kernel NTFS driver is too incomplete to even run most FS benchmarks, and comparing a kernel driver to a FUSE driver isn't really comparing the filesystems. That's probably why you don't see too many comparisons of the kind you're asking about.
        NTFS is bloated, poorly designed, only has POSIX file system attributes as an afterthought to comply with the minimal requirements of the US government. It has higher overhead, slower performance, and much more upkeep than a typical Linux/UNIX file system.

        Almost any file system you're likely to use on Linux or the BSDs is an improvement. I personally prefer XFS, on recent kernels the performance is excellent and so is the reliability and overall robustness.

        NTFS is also heavily patented by Microsoft, which is why the in-kernel driver is in the shape it is. They have to watch out what they put in it or it's another thing Microsoft will claim is an infringement. There's a much more complete userspace module for NTFS called NTFS-3G which is much better if you need to work on Windows file systems from a Linux system.

        Comment

        Working...
        X