Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux

[AlbertP]

To make a long story short.
My data on NTFS is just as safe as my data on ext4.
By the way, my disk works OK and I do have backups.

[kebabbert]

>>1. No one needs NTFS driver - people usually use it to access stuff on microsht or repair it. With linux box. No need for 10x access.
>1. You just provided your use case while denying it exists. Fancy.
It is WINDOWS machines that are repaired.

>> 2. NTFS permission system is a cumbersome joke! Linux 888 is so simplistic and efficient!
>2. You're incredibly wrong. My god, I just have no words._
Oh, I must be so wrong, typing those cacls in cmd or clicking my way through the permissions and be happy it works somehow, when on my linux machines chmod/chown or right click fantastically are efficient. Linux file permissions are DREAM, FACE IT.

>>3.3. Consider the efficiency - with ext4 I have never ever had to reinstall - the filesystem ALWAYS recovered safely. In ntfs and windows xp times I have been reinstalling it on monthly basis.
>3. Reinstalling is unrelated to a filesystem maintaining its integrity.
WOW, what a noob! I tell him NTFS f!cks up my data and is unable to store even metadata properly, while ext3/4 journal everything and he insists it is unrelated.
Try to defragment and hit reset button!

>>4. NTFS has badblocks... lols!
>4.In which you make it obvious that you're a snot-nosed brat with no idea what he's talking about.
Another "masterpiece" of yours! Badblocks are to be handled ONLY by the device itself.
1. Badblocks DO NOT belong to filesystem
2. Drive logic is ony responsible for transparent badblock
-- detection
-- recovery
-- relocation
3. For gods sake, there is SMART and it is more than enough to handle that.
One can also use SpinRite or Victoria to detect possibly faulty hardware, but it is unrelated to FS.
The utility you mentioned is only a simple tool to test each sector by writing and reading from it. It is unrelated to FS.

Ext does not store USELESS badblock data, unlike NT. Why? Because it IS DRIVE LEVEL. What happens FS marks block as BAD and device simply REMAPS it already? Yes - that "LOGICAL" bad block is now actually USEABLE, because its REMAPPED by DEVICE. Yet NTFS plays dumb-arse, just like FATTY.

Epiloge: NTFS has been around windows systems, that are USELESS. Ext has been around for decade (since birth of linux kernel?) and is most polished and most universal fs system around. It is not all-in-one FS, hence different FS exist (NILFS, BTRFS, REISER, JFS, XFS), but it is UNIVERSAL and strong. And if you want ext3 access from windows - there is a driver - use it.

>> You should stop making words now.
Thou shall sh!t up instead, please?

Please calm down.

Lots of enterprise Unix sysadmins, say that ACL is much more powerful than ordinary Unix read/right control. There are cases when you need ACL, and when 888 does not cut it.

Regarding ext3, it does not really protect your data well. SMART does not help. ext3 and NTFS are equally bad (or good) in protecting your data:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/how-microsoft-puts-your-data-at-risk/169

"Dr. Prabhakaran found that ALL the file systems [NTFS, ext3, ReiserFS, JFS and XFS] shared
. . . ad hoc failure handling and a great deal of illogical inconsistency in failure policy . . . such inconsistency leads to substantially different detection and recovery strategies under similar fault scenarios, resulting in unpredictable and often undesirable fault-handling strategies.
. . .
We observe little tolerance to transient failures; . . . . none of the file systems can recover from partial disk failures, due to a lack of in-disk redundancy.




In a nutshell he found that the all the file systems have

. . . failure policies that are often inconsistent, sometimes buggy, and generally inadequate in their ability to recover from partial disk failures. "

[liam]

Not quite accurate. It's true, admins don't use them all that much, but they *are* used by some of the desktop frameworks, e.g to grant a user access to audio devices when they log in, then revoke it when they log out. More flexible than simply adding the user to the 'audio' group.

Still, for day-to-day operation, the simple group-based model works pretty well...

He did say practically nobody, I think

[BenderRodriguez]

Yeah, awesome joke:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/stealthy-router-based-botnet-worm-squirming/2972

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Th...Botnet-626424/

The problem is that there was no weakness used except stupidity of the administrators that left default password or some services opened for "general public".

[Delgarde]

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.

Not quite accurate. It's true, admins don't use them all that much, but they *are* used by some of the desktop frameworks, e.g to grant a user access to audio devices when they log in, then revoke it when they log out. More flexible than simply adding the user to the 'audio' group.

Still, for day-to-day operation, the simple group-based model works pretty well...

[jcgeny]

Hmm I have a hard time believing this. The 'native' implementation of NTFS on windows 7 is much much slower than my ext4 partition with Ubuntu 10.10.

I have made a couple of tests with my new Crucial C300 256 Gb SSD, and the ext4 is super fast on this drive. Even though I only have SATA II, I get read speeds up to 290 MB/sek, which is almost three times as fast as I get in windows 7.

I really doubt that they managed to make a feature complete ntfs implementation that much better than windows' native ntfs implementation.

have you installed update 007 ? it is a very good firmware update and it renders disk faster http://www.crucial.com/support/firmware.aspx
last advice : you need 006 before 007

[TheBlackCat]

Yeah, awesome joke:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/stealthy-router-based-botnet-worm-squirming/2972

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Th...Botnet-626424/

I notice how the title of your second link is "The First Linux Botnet". The fact that a botnet on Linux is unusual enough to be worth mentioning, not to mention be the very first one, should tell you just how much better Linux security is. Botnets are so common on windows that they aren't even worth mentioning.

[yogi_berra]

No, it's on pair with Microsoft when you open all ports, run all services and every installed applications as well. If nothing happens then you have to find some trojan horse and run it.

Sure, whatever you say.

[yogi_berra]

Haha, awesome joke!

[/LIST]

Yeah, awesome joke:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/stealthy-router-based-botnet-worm-squirming/2972

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/The-First-Linux-Botnet-626424/

[schmidtbag]

AFAIK you should NOT defrag SSD's. Even though they seem defragmented with the tools, they are not. Keep in mind that the SSD drives uses very advanced algorithms to place the data in a logical order uniformly spread out on the SSD. In contrast to a HDD, the data needs not to be placed continuously on the disk and hence, defragmentation does nothing but harme (defragmentation will even not place the data, since the SSD will decide where to put it anyway).

EDIT:
Well it seems that you are indeed not defragmenting the SSD's My mistake.

actually, if an SSD shows fragmentation, it actually is fragmented. the algorithms you are talking about do exist but they actually cause more fragmentation. SSDs shouldn't be defragmented because they have a definite amount of times they can be written on (so the algorithm is used to make sure each cell of data is used as evenly as possible, to expand the lifespan of the drive), but also SSDs have a seek time of less than 1ms, so defragmenting does nothing but hurt your drive. it's also recommended to turn off indexing on SSDs, for the same reasons.