Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:33:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Cc: "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NTFS in GENERIC: opt-in or opt-out? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901191632100.36163@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20090119081843.GA49607@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <49742ADA.5080509@FreeBSD.org> <20090119081843.GA49607@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:25:14PM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote: >> >> I am reviewing differences between amd64 and i386 GENERIC kernels and >> noticed that for some unclear reason we ship amd64 GENERIC with NTFS module >> compiled in, while i386 without it. IMHO both should match. The question is >> whether NTFS should be i386 way (opt in) or amd64 way (opt out) in GENERIC? >> What do people think? > > given that the sysutils/fusefs-ntfs seems to be much better, I'd rather > remove the in-kernel ntfs from both and replace with a note on what to do to > use fusefs-ntfs There was a long thread on this topic on arch@, maybe 6 months ago, in which it was concluded that: (1) fusefs is fairly (quite) unstable if used intensively (2) our kernel ntfs code is much faster for read-only operation I doubt either of these has changed significantly in that time, but I'm willing to be surprised. I watched my office-mate here at the CL suffer through the fuse/ntfs support on FreeBSD 7.x for several weeks before giving up and using UFS on his larger USB-attached storage. He saw a range of panics in that time, all in fuse. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0901191632100.36163>