Corsair USB 3.0 Flash Voyager Drives: EXT4 vs. NTFS vs. Btrfs vs. F2FS

[startas]

Well, there is paragon ntfs driver for Linux, both paid and free versions, but I have never seen a single benchmark of it. Paragon makes high quality file system drivers for Linux/mac/windows, so I wonder why no one has ever tested it, considering that default ntfs-3g is crap.

[stiiixy]

Is there an in-kernel MS-friendly filesystem that runs with good performance I can use in a linux distro? I dual-boot at the moment and reserved a large storage partition for some games and scratch discing etc, and yeah, NTFS is rather slow when in linux. There's also the fun bit of having to restart in Windows if it went to sleep while in Windows otherwise the partition is marked unclean and drops to console for recovery. I believe that may well be caused by swap on that partition (hiber is actually turned off)

[starshipeleven]

Results are really in consistent => is not mature and good enough OS, if such things still happen.

NTFS driver results inconsistent => whole linux OS is not mature and good enough.

Logic.

[starshipeleven]

NTFS is a major fubar and one of the major performance pitholes in the Windows space.
How about exFAT for usb mass storage? All the features of normal fs:es on external storage like this is one of the last concerns for normal users.
Don't know about the fuse exFAT state however.

This isn't NTFS from windows, but NTFS from linux. Linux NTFS drivers are crappy because various obvious reasons. NTFS from windows is pretty good.

exFAT from linux uses the same FUSE infrastructure of NTF on linux, so it will have crap performance, and might be also as unreliable.

[stqn]

Only FAT, vFAT, exFAT support the uid, gid, umask option.

And ntfs-3g.

[GreatEmerald]

Only FAT, vFAT, exFAT support the uid, gid, umask option.

UDF does too. I thought it was more widespread than that, hm.

[dragonn]

Hm? Just mount it with a specific umask.

Only FAT, vFAT, exFAT support the uid, gid, umask option.

[stiiixy]

I was about to test this very thing using ubuntu server, arch and SME Server (until I was rudely evicted from my house!). I've always thought that the most you could expect from USB is as many drives as there are controllers and that putting two sticks on the same physical 'stack' would kind of nerf your overall performance in a none to useful way and you'd be btter of spreading them across the stacks, and if you only hace 2x2, then settle for 2 sticks.

Worth testing the various configs (1, 2 and 4) anyway. I've been successfully using a single USB setup on Arch for years for my file-server. So long as I dont do stupid things like setting verbose logging without making it head to a disk somewhere, you're sweet for a year at least! The point of using hte USB was saving that last of 6 SATA ports which are so common on your acerage yum-cha board.

I'm also going to try those garbage 20 dollar 32GB SSD's from aliexpress =D I have a SATA<USB convertor so should be fun to tack up the number's on all this across various kernels, OS's and hardware.

[GreatEmerald]

All Linux file system have one problem with removable media - they is no way to disable permissions for they entire file system, this is really, really frustrating when you share one media between multiple systems with multiple users.

Hm? Just mount it with a specific umask.

[jacob]

NTFS is a major fubar and one of the major performance pitholes in the Windows space.
How about exFAT for usb mass storage? All the features of normal fs:es on external storage like this is one of the last concerns for normal users.
Don't know about the fuse exFAT state however.

I could be wrong but I believe that exFAT is patent encumbered. In fact I think this was the main reason why F2FS was created at the first place.