3 ms·
Nothing particularly wrong with NTFS, it's Windows filesystem architecture that is slow.
by garaetjjte 4y ago
Nothing particularly wrong with NTFS, it's Windows filesystem architecture that is slow.
- solarkraft 4y agoI can't find it right now, but I believe there was a talk from a Rust maintainer a while ago about the Rust installation being way slower than it should be, which was almost entirely a rant on Windows file system performance.
- ygra 4y agoThat one perhaps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbKGw8MQ0i8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbKGw8MQ0i8 I don't recall it particularly ranty, though.
- solarkraft 4y agoThat's it, thank you! I chose the word because I remembered it being a bit rant-adjacent ("we're used to doing it this way, ... but windows does it that way"). But it's been a while since I watched it (not particularly attentively either, to be honest). That's just what stuck.
- overthrow 4y agoI'd love to see a benchmark of NTFS on Windows vs NTFS on Linux. Unfortunately ntfs-3g uses FUSE so right now it's not really a fair comparison.
- mappu 4y agoLinux has an upstream kernel driver for NTFS, you don't need fuse ntfs-3g any more (well, they have different quirks such as how UNIX permissions are emulated). The readwrite driver is new, but it always had an older readonly driver too, which would be fine for benchmarking. Back in 2011 Tuxera's proprietary Linux NTFS driver was maybe faster than ext as well: https://www.phoronix.com/news/OTU5Ng https://www.phoronix.com/news/OTU5Ng
- overthrow 4y agoThanks I wasn't aware of that, I stand corrected