Originally posted by GreatEmerald
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux
Collapse
X
-
-
The Windows permission system is so different from the Linux one, that it's very hard to make a driver that can handle those permissions. So on NTFS by default, everyone gets read/write permission, and no one execute.
By the way, NTFS does not fragment much when using Linux on it. It is not the filesystem itself that fragments, it's Windows.
I have used an NTFS partition as /home on Linux on some computer, and after a couple of months Windows' defragment tool did not show 1 red line: all white/blue.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Qaridarium"proprietary NTFS Linux kernel driver "
do i use a free and opensource system to install an proprietary file system??? LOOL!
i also use the radeon driver and not the catalyst.... those people should just shut up no one care about proprietary file system drivers...
Comment
-
Originally posted by pvtcupcakes View PostInteresting. So the filesystem has a bunch of security features that a standard home user install of Windows will never use. If everybody is running an Admin account, then what's the point of permissions.
Maybe these features are actually used in an enterprise environment.
Comment
-
I think at least some of those people aren't as clueless as you think, and they believe that the driver implementation ("Tuxera NTFS") may not have all of the features that "MS NTFS" has. I wouldn't find that hard to believe, though I guess it could be possible that Tuxera NTFS is a feature complete implementation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JairJy View PostAgain, you don't actually know about Windows. Since Vista, Windows' users doesn't have admin rights by default so these security features apply. Users in Vista and 7 can't delete/modify system files and they need permission (managed by User Account Control) to modifiy all other files outside their personal files.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostLOL @ all the clueless people here who think that somehow EXT4 has "more features" than NTFS, which happens to actually be one of the most advanced filesystems in this universe. The only issue with it is that it's proprietary.
MetaData
File system↓- NTFS
- EXT4
Stores file owner↓- NTFS: Yes
- EXT4: Yes
POSIX file permissions↓- NTFS: Yes
- EXT4: Yes
Creation timestamps↓- NTFS: yes
- EXT4: yes
Last access/ read timestamps↓- NTFS: yes
- EXT4: yes
Last content modification timestamps↓- NTFS: Yes
- EXT4: yes
This copy created↓- NTFS: No
- EXT4: Unknown
Last metadata change timestamps↓- NTFS: Yes
- EXT4: Yes
Last archive timestamps↓- NTFS: No
- EXT4: No
Access control lists↓- NTFS: Yes
- EXT4: Yes
Security/ MAC labels↓- NTFS: Yes
- EXT4: Yes
Extended attributes/ Alternate data streams/ forks↓- NTFS: Yes
- EXT4: Yes
Checksum/ ECC- NTFS: No
- EXT4: Partial
Limits
Maximum filename length↓- NTFS: 255 characters
- EXT4: 256 bytes
Allowable characters in directory entries↓- NTFS: Any Unicode except NUL and \ / : * ? " < > |
- EXT4: Any byte except NUL and /
Maximum pathname length↓- NTFS: 32,767 Unicode characters with each path component (directory or filename) commonly up to 255 characters long
- EXT4: No limit defined
Maximum file size↓- NTFS: 16 EB (16 ? 10246 bytes)
- EXT4: 16 GB to 16 TB
Maximum volume size- NTFS: 16 EB
- EXT4: 1 EB (but user tools limited to 16 TB)
Features
Hard links↓- NTFS Yes:
- EXT4: Yes
Symbolic links↓- NTFS: Yes
- EXT4: Yes
Block journaling↓- NTFS: No
- EXT4: Yes
Metadata-only journaling↓- NTFS: Yes
- EXT4: Yes
Case-sensitive↓- NTFS: Yes
- EXT4: Yes
Case-preserving↓- NTFS: Yes
- EXT4: Yes
File Change Log↓- NTFS: yes
- EXT4: No
Snapshot↓- NTFS: Partial
- EXT4: No
XIP↓- NTFS: Yes
- EXT4: Yes
Encryption↓- NTFS: Yes
- EXT4: No
COW↓- NTFS: Partial
- EXT4: No
integrated LVM↓- NTFS: Unknown
- EXT4: No
Data deduplication↓- NTFS: No
- EXT4: No
Volumes are resizeable↓- NTFS: Online
- EXT4: Online
Right off hand RealNC, I think you would be the clueless one.
Okay, in all fairness, this listing isn't entirely accurate. For starters I'm referencing WikiPedia, which like RealNC, isn't exactly known for it's accuracy. Most of the listed data seems to check out.
Another problem is that the NTFS entry isn't exactly accurate. Let me explain.
Find it on Q&A — the home for technical questions and answers at Microsoft. New to Q&A? See our get started article below.
While most file-systems have a clear pedigree of development, NTFS does not. Microsoft obscures their own NTFS version history. While there are some technical documents outlining Versions 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 3.0, and 3.1, there are additional versions such as 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, 6.1 that have also been mentioned.
These updated versions of the NTFS file system often ship with new editions of Microsoft Windows releases. These new versions may, or may not be, backwards compatible with previous Microsoft Windows Operating System installations.
Now, from a purely factual point of view, based on the available documentation, the only real advantage NTFS has is it's size capacity. NTFS 6.1 will address up to 16 Exabytes. EXT4 will only do 16 Terabytes.
However, EXT4 isn't targeted for that market. For tasks that require that much data storage NTFS's opponent would be BtrFS, where NTFS is, in factual terms, way behind. Pretty much every-place that NTFS has a "NO" or a limit, BtrFS has a "YES" or "Work-in-Progress"
To be blunt, the comments from Tuxera, and RealNC in this thread, are a "Mug's Game"
Other forum posters have already singled out one specific problem. Are the Tuxera benchmarks being run within a manufactured environment, or are they benchmarks that reflect daily use?
This raises other questions, such as:
Do the Tuxera benchmarks implement the full range of features NTFS offers, or do they only reference the features exposed in non-commercial editions of Microsoft Windows?
Do the Tuxera benchmarks cover all known versions of the NTFS file system, or do they cover a specific version of the File System?
Until these questions are answered no performance judgment can be made.
Now, as to NTFS as a file-system itself. Keep in mind that when NTFS 3.0 hit with Windows 2000, Microsoft could afford to hire, or in some cases blackmail, the best file-system engineers on the planet to work for them. Yes that was a non-subtle reference to the fact that the Microsoft Corporation is a Convicted Felon.
As a file-system NTFS is indeed competent and competitive. However, that is all that NTFS is. A competent competitor. NTFS is not, by anybody's imagination, a file-system that is years ahead of any other "modern" file-system.
Keep this in mind. The EXT4 specification was announced in 2006 and was stabilized in 2008.
Windows 7 launched a year later in 2009. Despite an extra-development-year on Microsoft's part, the NTFS 6.1 version only has one major advantage over EXT4. NTFS will do 16 Exabytes. That's it.
On top of that, EXT4 retained backwards / fowards compatibility with EXT3: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/li...xt4/index.html
NTFS... didn't.
Take that how you will.
Comment
Comment