Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Windows vs Linux TAR files

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    164

    Default Windows vs Linux TAR files

    I'm not sure if Phoronix is the best place to ask this but here goes.

    Can anyone explain to me why a 4MB tar file with around 2000 small files in it takes up to 12 seconds to extract in windows 7 64-bit (I have tried 7zip and the windows GNU Tar port ) on a Xeon 3Ghz 6 core, 12GB memory machine

    And yet is almost instant on a Ubuntu Linux 64-bit machine with a Dual core AMD 3Ghz, 8GB ram.

    Surely windows can't really be that bad at creating new files on the file system can it?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,175

    Default

    AFAIK this is due to ext4 vs NTFS. NTFS plain simply sucks on Windows. I haven't tried it myself, but I hear that this is the reason Minecraft has much faster loading times on Linux (many small files).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d2kx View Post
    AFAIK this is due to ext4 vs NTFS. NTFS plain simply sucks on Windows. I haven't tried it myself, but I hear that this is the reason Minecraft has much faster loading times on Linux (many small files).
    I was thinking that could be it but I just cant believe that NTFS is really that slow. I forgot to add that the Windows machine I tried it on has both a raid setup and a SSD and neither made a difference. While my Ubuntu machine just has a plain old hard drive.

    Oh well I guess its another reason to tell my boss why we should be using linux.

    Edit: I also tried using a RAM Drive application that made a virtual Fat32 disk drive in RAM and it was still very slow almost unchanged from the real disk drives.
    Last edited by timothyja; 02-27-2013 at 07:54 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d2kx View Post
    AFAIK this is due to ext4 vs NTFS. NTFS plain simply sucks on Windows. I haven't tried it myself, but I hear that this is the reason Minecraft has much faster loading times on Linux (many small files).
    I can confirm this. I tried to copy a few large files and a huge amount of small files to a NTFS usb-drive last week and the performance was horrible (sometimes it felt like it wasn't even copying new files). It was so horrible that I formatted the drive to exfat and now it works quite good (windows and linux) with the same amount of large files.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,091

    Default

    File a bug report xD

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default Linux vs Windows speed

    I think that, in terms of speed, there's a difference between Windows and Linux. Linux seems to be faster. I found this information on weloveourhost.com/linux-windows.html Maybe you could read that page to get a better understanding of the differences between the 2 platforms. Good luck!

Posting Permissions

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