On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Freeman
<evenso@worldwidehtml.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 07:20:04PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 06:50:12PM +0000, Russell Gadd wrote:
> >
> > Should I go NTFS now for my data files? (keeping the main Lenny root
> > filesystem on an ext3 partition).
>
> Just my experience but:
>
> 1) VFAT is a terrible filesystem with all sorts of restrictions, not least
> filesize and encoding issues.
> 2) NTFS (using ntfs-3g) performs terribly on Linux. The FUSE driver is
> slow, and this makes data transfer a very lengthy affair. No idea
> about reliability, but I think it's better than it was and I've not
> run into issues myself.
>
> Note that there's a third option: EXT2.
>
> Ext2 obviously works very well on Linux. Using the EXT2IFS driver for
> Windows, you can use Ext2/3 filesystems on Windows as well.
>
http://www.fs-driver.org/
>
large transfers between ext3 and NTFS ever got my attention as particularly
slow or fast.
I use NTFS on a shared storage partition and two usb drives but not on Linux
specific data partitions.
--
Kind Regards,
Freeman
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
Hey,
As someone who has most of there data on ntfs partitions (left over from when I switched from windows), I can say that the current ntfs-3G driver is fine, all my music etc is on the ntfs volumes and I don't notice any high CPU usage in normal operation.
Though, when moving large amounts of data (a few gig's) or having rhythmbox rebuild my library (stored on a ntfs disk) it can take upto 30% ish of one core (quad core system).
The main problem with using ntfs with linux is that it tends to get quite badly fragmented, and I dont enjoy having to sit in windows for some time while it sorts itself out.
But when it comes down to raw performance I have no real complaints, moving data around seems faster than under windows, but ymmv.
In the end, if you need to share data between a linux partition and a Windows one NTFS is a fine choice, and has performed fine for me.
Angus.