Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux

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

  • #21
    No news here...

    I would think that anyone could make a sloppy filesystem really really fast. Right? I mean, who cares? NTFS fragments like crazy... why is this good? Who cares if this performs slightly better... you know that tomorrow it won't.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
      NTFS implements ACLs. You know, the thing that was invented because Unix-style user/group permissions that were invented in the previous century just don't cut it anymore.
      LOL.

      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. If I remember correctly, the Unix-style file permissions were created precisely to eliminate the hassle of dealing with ACLs on older operating systems.

      BTW, you do realise that NTFS was 'invented in the previous century', right? As were ACLs?

      Comment


      • #23
        Well, we all know that MS security is just a practice in smoke and mirrors anyway. No need to worry about what is effectively not really there and certainly nothing to be afraid of. Whether it is a very complicated execution of smoke and mirrors is besides the point.

        I find the claims of superior performance to be a bit out to lunch. When all is said and done, you can't go faster than the actual physical media, and existing filesystem performance isn't so far behind that you could even remotely expect such massive improvements. Somewhere along the line, someone is faking the numbers, or the numbers are selected very very specifically in order to generate misleading results.

        This "Anton" is just blowing out of his ass. There's no news here, its just nonsense claims about a proprietary driver that might not even exist.

        Comment


        • #24
          190mb/sec sounds just like the data never hits the disk.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by energyman View Post
            190mb/sec sounds just like the data never hits the disk.
            Hadn't thought about it, but yes. Moreover the storage medium being used is not reported.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by energyman View Post
              190mb/sec sounds just like the data never hits the disk.
              Its worse than that... by a factory of 8.... They're claiming BYTES, not just bits.

              Comment


              • #27
                NTFS-3G is already quite fast; my Freecom 80GB USB disk works with 25 MB/s write speed using Linux. On Windows it writes at 20 MB/s, using exactly the same laptop. (The limit is not the disk on the other side of the copy; the Western Digital 250GB of my laptop can read files much faster)

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by AlbertP View Post
                  NTFS-3G is already quite fast; my Freecom 80GB USB disk works with 25 MB/s write speed using Linux. On Windows it writes at 20 MB/s, using exactly the same laptop. (The limit is not the disk on the other side of the copy; the Western Digital 250GB of my laptop can read files much faster)
                  I wouldn't put too much relevance on your observations regarding your USB disk. The bottleneck there is the USB, not the filesystem driver or disk. Speed difference between windows and linux there is more likely a function of the USB driver.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                    Well, we all know that MS security is just a practice in smoke and mirrors anyway. No need to worry about what is effectively not really there and certainly nothing to be afraid of. Whether it is a very complicated execution of smoke and mirrors is besides the point.

                    I find the claims of superior performance to be a bit out to lunch. When all is said and done, you can't go faster than the actual physical media, and existing filesystem performance isn't so far behind that you could even remotely expect such massive improvements. Somewhere along the line, someone is faking the numbers, or the numbers are selected very very specifically in order to generate misleading results.

                    This "Anton" is just blowing out of his ass. There's no news here, its just nonsense claims about a proprietary driver that might not even exist.
                    What is this "smoke and mirrors" game that you are talking about? I mean in particular, not some vague accusation about NTFS. What about its security model is "smoke and mirrors"? And don't claim that the fact that pre-Vista Windows tended to have home users run as admin, or that Vista and later have UAC to allow elevation necessary to operate on files the user doesn't have permissions on. That's a shell, user policy thing, not an issue with NTFS.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      great news , it s cool to have so high performances . once again linux fails , but let s hope the driver will be added to kernel .

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X