5 ms·

Was there something terrible about NTFS-3G?

m000 6y ago
Uhhhmmm... Speed? Stability? NTFS-3G has been a lifesaver for occasional use, but with anything remotely I/O intensive, it starts to crack.
- krzyk 6y ago
  Why would you use NTFS on linux for anything other than occasional use?
  - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
    Why should it matter?
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    To make backups of data on a Windows partition. Playing games residing on a Windows partition. The main purpose I can think of though is forensics (images might contain NTFS).
  - mimi89999 6y ago
    To deploy Windows from WIM imeges. Windows PE isn't something one would even consider using.
    - jlgaddis 6y ago
      I didn't know this was even possible but now I'll be looking into it. Thanks.
  - q3k 6y ago
    Why not? It's a good filesystem, why not use it?
    - nwallin 6y ago
      It's kind of a garbage filesystem though. HN gets all bent out of shape about minor differences between btrfs and zfs. Like how zfs supports raid5/6 but btrfs raid5/6 support is immature. Meanwhile NTFS doesn't even support checksumming, multiple block devices, copy on write, the performance on SSDs is garbage, etc etc.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        At least that 'garbage' hasn't died on me like the majority of my BTRFS partitions have. (Thankfully they all mostly still worked in read-only mode.)
      - chasil 6y ago
        The whole of the NT kernel was essentially a futurized implementation of VAX-VMS. Both VMS and NT had the same manager, in the person of Dave Cutler. Microsoft hired a large team away from DEC to build NT (which became the subject of litigation from DEC). I have read that NTFS shares common architecture with Files-11/ODS-2&5 (native VMS filesystems). Aspects were also lifted from OS/2. ZFS was developed a decade after NTFS. Most UNIX was still on FFS when NTFS was born. https://wikimili.com/en/Files-11 https://wikimili.com/en/Files-11
        p_l 6y ago
        Ext2 was AFAIK a FFS-style design.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    It's the only non-FAT filesystem with good cross-OS compatibiity.
    - m000 6y ago
      This. Now, you've made me wonder if in the near future you could have both Windows and Linux installed on the same -gasp- partition.
      - brnt 6y ago
        I had for years. Usung Wubi.
    - aflag 6y ago
      Can't you use ext2/3 pretty much everywhere too?
- rwmj 6y ago
  Stability hasn't been an issue for us. Virt-v2v uses ntfs-3g intensively and we have migrated a large fraction of a million VMs, many (the Windows ones) all using ntfs-3g. We've not had problems with ntfs-3g at all. I'm still interested to see if an in-kernel driver can be better. (Disclaimer: I have contributed a few patches to ntfs-3g upstream)
rwmj 6y ago
The main problems are there have been no released versions since 2017, combined with an annoying "open core" development model where some nice to have features have been held back from the free version (although not ones we care about too much). For our use case (virt-v2v) speed is not an issue, but data integrity when reading, writing and modifying many dozens of files absolutely is, and ntfs-3g has been very reliable. (Disclaimer: I've made occasional contributions to ntfs-3g upstream)

m000 6y ago

Uhhhmmm... Speed? Stability? NTFS-3G has been a lifesaver for occasional use, but with anything remotely I/O intensive, it starts to crack.

krzyk 6y ago
Why would you use NTFS on linux for anything other than occasional use?
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  Why should it matter?
- Fnoord 6y ago
  To make backups of data on a Windows partition. Playing games residing on a Windows partition. The main purpose I can think of though is forensics (images might contain NTFS).
- mimi89999 6y ago
  To deploy Windows from WIM imeges. Windows PE isn't something one would even consider using.
  - jlgaddis 6y ago
    I didn't know this was even possible but now I'll be looking into it. Thanks.
- q3k 6y ago
  Why not? It's a good filesystem, why not use it?
  - nwallin 6y ago
    It's kind of a garbage filesystem though. HN gets all bent out of shape about minor differences between btrfs and zfs. Like how zfs supports raid5/6 but btrfs raid5/6 support is immature. Meanwhile NTFS doesn't even support checksumming, multiple block devices, copy on write, the performance on SSDs is garbage, etc etc.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      At least that 'garbage' hasn't died on me like the majority of my BTRFS partitions have. (Thankfully they all mostly still worked in read-only mode.)
    - chasil 6y ago
      The whole of the NT kernel was essentially a futurized implementation of VAX-VMS. Both VMS and NT had the same manager, in the person of Dave Cutler. Microsoft hired a large team away from DEC to build NT (which became the subject of litigation from DEC). I have read that NTFS shares common architecture with Files-11/ODS-2&5 (native VMS filesystems). Aspects were also lifted from OS/2. ZFS was developed a decade after NTFS. Most UNIX was still on FFS when NTFS was born. https://wikimili.com/en/Files-11 https://wikimili.com/en/Files-11
      - p_l 6y ago
        Ext2 was AFAIK a FFS-style design.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  It's the only non-FAT filesystem with good cross-OS compatibiity.
  - m000 6y ago
    This. Now, you've made me wonder if in the near future you could have both Windows and Linux installed on the same -gasp- partition.
    - brnt 6y ago
      I had for years. Usung Wubi.
  - aflag 6y ago
    Can't you use ext2/3 pretty much everywhere too?
rwmj 6y ago
Stability hasn't been an issue for us. Virt-v2v uses ntfs-3g intensively and we have migrated a large fraction of a million VMs, many (the Windows ones) all using ntfs-3g. We've not had problems with ntfs-3g at all. I'm still interested to see if an in-kernel driver can be better. (Disclaimer: I have contributed a few patches to ntfs-3g upstream)

rwmj 6y ago

The main problems are there have been no released versions since 2017, combined with an annoying "open core" development model where some nice to have features have been held back from the free version (although not ones we care about too much). For our use case (virt-v2v) speed is not an issue, but data integrity when reading, writing and modifying many dozens of files absolutely is, and ntfs-3g has been very reliable. (Disclaimer: I've made occasional contributions to ntfs-3g upstream)