[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mounting NTFS partitions....
On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:26:40 -0700 (PDT), Ira Abramov <ira@scso.com> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Ze'ev Maor wrote:
>
>> I've compiled 2.1.119 and read-only seems to work fine, I've tried to mount
>> an NTFS partition as rw to check the beta write driver, I tried copying a 10
>> byte ascii file into the NTFS partition and the system crashed on the spot,
>> no ctrl-alt-del reboot, no nothing. Panicly, I booted my NT and thank god,
>> the partition remaind intact (it even had the new file in it;-), I guess I
>> should be happy with that, you should'nt play around with such experimental
>> drivers - not when it's something as important as an NTFS partition on the
>> line.
>
>
>just as a side note: NTFS is proven slower than FAT. the only reasons to
>run NT with NTFS and not FAT are the alocation sizes and file
>ownership/permissions. e2fs is naturally faster than both :-)
The main reason to use NTFS is that it's much more reliable (it's much harder
to trash an NTFS partition by a random system crash). I think this is what's
called transaction based file systems (correct me if I'm wrong). By logging
disk operations, it is possible to unroll any disk transaction aborted in the
middle by a system crash, and return the file system to a consistent state.
Also, I've heard NTFS tends to defragment less than FAT (but still does).
And yes, I've heard NTFS is slower than FAT which is reasonable, because:
1. NTFS has to do more disk writes for the logs mentioned above.
2. NTFS has to check secutiry information, which FAT doesn't.
On the other hand, NTFS has a much more advanced caching/buffering scheme than
FAT.
Udi