3 ms·
Uh, you might want to look at NTFS performance for your given use case. If, say, you're a C++ programmer and your use case is reading lots of small files quickl
by groby_b 13y ago
Uh, you might want to look at NTFS performance for your given use case. If, say, you're a C++ programmer and your use case is reading lots of small files quickly and closing them again so you can compile, NTFS is a horror cabinet.
HFS beats that quite handily (and gets obliterated by ExtFS2 performance.)
- MBCook 13y agoAt this point, I'd just like a filesystem I don't have to worry about. I never had a problem with NTFS.
- gaadd33 13y agoSo having slow compiles on NTFS is worse than having silent corruption on HFS?
- groby_b 13y agoDepends on the use case, no? Would I want to store a lot of important write-once data on HFS? Reluctantly, if at all. High-throughput database? Yuck, no. Would I trust it with a source-tree that is stored in a DVCS and immediately restorable, while also giving me much faster compiles? Yep. Would I choose either FS for a server? Nope. That was the point - there is no single "best" file system, or the world would've long ago settled on it. Look at what you need it for, and make your decision accordingly.