Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 16:29:12 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> To: Nikolay Pavlov <qpadla@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Joao Barros <joao.barros@gmail.com>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org>, Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org>, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove NTFS kernel support Message-ID: <20080210002912.GA7399@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <200802072052.56918.qpadla@gmail.com> References: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> <200802071941.23199.qpadla@gmail.com> <70e8236f0802071018n389afa3bu161eaa5c6563cbc0@mail.gmail.com> <200802072052.56918.qpadla@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nikolay Pavlov wrote this message on Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 20:52 +0200: > On Thursday 07 February 2008 20:18:42 Joao Barros wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2008 5:41 PM, Nikolay Pavlov <qpadla@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thursday 07 February 2008 14:47:41 Eric Anderson wrote: > > > > FUSE is slow, requires a port (unless PUFFS is ported, which I've > > > > probed about before). > > > > > > I think this is not an argument: > > > http://www.ntfs-3g.org/performance.html > > > > Eric has valid points. > > How relevant is a benchmark on Linux to your argument? > > But it's a userland application. This page is demonstration of it's > potential performance that could be achieved, but were is the FreeBSD NTFS > implementation stats? Let me ask you: compered to what FUSE is slow? Kernel NTFS support is about 10x faster than ntfs-3g on FreeBSD (I think this also depends upon the size of the file). This is because ntfs-3g depends upon the block device that linux provides to userland. There are patches that make ntfs-3g have it's own block cache that makes it perform decently on FreeBSD, but until those patches are integrated, using ntfs-3g is a non-starter if you use NTFS for >4GB file support. It's faster to use samba to a Windows box than it is to use ntfs-3g to write large files. (And that's even w/ how much slower samba is that nfs.) I don't have any hard core benchmarks handy. Even on MacOSX ntfs-3g is sooo slow. It's so slow, that I don't even both hooking up NTFS disks to my MacOSX box anymore either. Though I will say that once ntfs-3g has decided that they want to target other platforms than Linux and address these performance issues, I will be one of the first asking for our current NTFS code to be removed and replaced by ntfs-3g, but until that time, we need to keep the current code. -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080210002912.GA7399>