Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: EXT4 File-System Looks To Do Well Against NTFS

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    It wouldn't make sense if antivirus was running, so you can be nearly sure it wasn't.
    This is Phoronix that is doing the benchmarking. I think we can assume it was running if it was not specified otherwise.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    213

    Default

    More interesting would be benchmarking NTFS-3g vs Windows 7 NTFS. I've heard the performance is very good with NTFS-3g, and there's apparently a souped-up embedded version that's crazy fast.
    That would be an interesting test.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    This is Phoronix that is doing the benchmarking. I think we can assume it was running if it was not specified otherwise.
    Does Windows 7 has antivirus for default?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Like always they use default settings, so windows defender will probably run. Its fair to assume, that >90% of the W7 users will leave it that way. Sure all those tests are far from being fair or objective, but if you are comparing apples and oranges, you still might be able to draw a conclusion which tastes better.
    And I would also like to see a NTFS-3G being thrown into the mix.
    And while some tests are quite questionable, the wall-powered tests doesn't seem to be a big letdown. I'd assume Linux wouldn't magically activate all the power-saving options only when running on batteries.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Does Windows 7 has antivirus for default?
    By default Windows Defender is active and it has a significant performance hit upon file operations.

    Not knowing if it is enabled or not makes these tests pointless.

    It wouldn't make sense if antivirus was running, so you can be nearly sure it wasn't.
    I've asked a question, I expect an answer not a wild guess. Assumptions are meaningless.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    One thing that is important to note, are the drives running in AHCI mode or IDE Mode and if running in AHCI mode are you using the built in microsoft drivers or Intels chipset drivers. There is quite a performance difference between the modes and drivers.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dashcloud View Post
    More interesting would be benchmarking NTFS-3g vs Windows 7 NTFS. I've heard the performance is very good with NTFS-3g, and there's apparently a souped-up embedded version that's crazy fast.
    That would be an interesting test.
    NTFS-3g seems to use an insanely poor block allocation strategy. I copied a couple hundred gigabytes of files, ranging in size from a few KB to several GB, to a fresly-formatted NTFS partition using NTFS-3g. Accessing the files was incredibly slow, so I ran the Windows defragmenter. 70% of the files had 2 or more fragments, and it was actually so bad that 20 files failed to defragment (a couple of them happened to be sparse VM images). All of the blocks were scattered around the center of the partition, negating the read performance benefits and lack of fragmentation one would expect to achieve by copying files onto a fresh partition.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gilboa View Post
    As I recall, ext3 (out-of-the-box) was somewhat faster than a optimized ext4 (write barrier disabled, we were using a huge FC storage).
    And both were ~12-20x faster then 2K8 NTFS.
    - Gilboa
    That's been my limited experience - NTFS isn't just slow it's abysmal.

    That ext4 is 'on par' with it really points to ext4 being a very very poor choice. (and probably that the benchmark wasn't done very well).

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    The ntfs-3g port to OpenSolaris is also slow. (Yes, "famous troll is back")

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    The ntfs-3g port to OpenSolaris is also slow. (Yes, "famous troll is back")
    If ntfs is slow it's port will be slow too right? Ntfs-3g is probably noticeably slower then native. ("He didn't show papers ever, but he was considering all the time he did, it was so funny :>").

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •