Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:07:10 -0300 From: Alejandro Pulver <alepulver@FreeBSD.org> To: Jan Henrik Sylvester <me@janh.de> Cc: Babak Farrokhi <farrokhi@FreeBSD.org>, ports-list freebsd <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ntfsprogs vs. fusefs-ntfs (ntfs-3g) reliability? Message-ID: <20080825180710.784a14ec@deimos.mars.bsd> In-Reply-To: <48A2A3E9.1040503@janh.de> References: <48A2A3E9.1040503@janh.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/aapi0GvbuIw1tENOI3I.40d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:05:45 +0200 Jan Henrik Sylvester <me@janh.de> wrote: > Is there a particular reason our ntfsprogs port did not get updated for=20 > a year but now it has? >=20 None I'm aware of, I just received a request and did it one day, as it was very similar to the fusefs-ntfs port. > So far I did use ntfs-3g for mounting and ntfsprogs for resizing etc.=20 > with very few problems. Once on copying many files, two of them were=20 > only partially written with error messages "Bad address" and "No such=20 > file or directory". On the second attempt, I was able to copy them.=20 > (Moreover, using qemu volumes residing on ntfs-3g does not work, but I=20 > guess that is more of a fuse issue than an ntfs-3g one.) >=20 > Today, our ntfsprogs port got updated to 2.0.0. On ntfs-3g.org, it is=20 > stated that "[they] warn against the usage of ntfsprogs-2.0.0 because of= =20 > major reliability issues (write failure, sparse file corruption, utility= =20 > hang, etc). Use an earlier version instead until they get fixed." >=20 > Some google search shows that former ntfsprogs developer(s) are now=20 > working on ntfs-3g and the authors of both projects have some=20 > discrepancies: http://forum.linux-ntfs.org/viewtopic.php?t=3D741=20 > http://www.nabble.com/Re:-ntfsprogs-2.0.0-released-p12958587.html >=20 > All I can tell is that ntfsprogs really has not been updated for a year=20 > and ntfs-3g seems to be actively developed. >=20 > Either the ntfs-3g developer is correct and using ntfsprogs 2.0.0 is=20 > dangerous, or he is incorrect, which would make using ntfs-3g a little=20 > dubious. >=20 > Do you have any information from a third party? Do you think that both=20 > FreeBSD ports ntfs-3g and ntfsprogs 2.0.0 are reliable? >=20 I haven't tested the latest ntfsprogs very much, but both suffer from a reliability issue described in their respective README.FreeBSD (as other file systems using fuse4bsd). > Thanks, > Jan Henrik --Sig_/aapi0GvbuIw1tENOI3I.40d Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkizHv4ACgkQiV05EpRcP2FiYgCfYm5ng6k+S4c8VHp4Jfi4gZSA NVcAn3BcpQ+Tfo8c0HO5+S5EQ92zuWRa =pmoD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/aapi0GvbuIw1tENOI3I.40d--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080825180710.784a14ec>