Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:52:21 +0000 (UTC) From: Szabolcs Szakacsits <szaka@ntfs-3g.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove NTFS kernel support Message-ID: <loom.20080210T014535-68@post.gmane.org> References: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> <200802071941.23199.qpadla@gmail.com> <70e8236f0802071018n389afa3bu161eaa5c6563cbc0@mail.gmail.com> <200802072052.56918.qpadla@gmail.com> <20080210002912.GA7399@funkthat.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John-Mark Gurney <jmg <at> funkthat.com> writes: > 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 <at> 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. Well, I think we have worked hard all last year with Csaba Henk (FUSE/FreeBSD and the ublio caching layer author/maintainer), Alejandro Pulver (fusefs-ntfs, ntfs-3g/FreeBSD developer/maintainer), Paul Marks (ntfs-3g/OS X ublio integrator/ex-maintainer) and Erik Larsson (ntfs-3g/OS X ublio integrator/developer/maintainer) to provide this performance improvement by default on FreeBSD and OS X. The FreeBSD one is available for seven months: http://www.freshports.org/sysutils/fusefs-ntfs I think this is very worth to read: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/sysutils/fusefs-ntfs/files/pkg-message.in?rev=1.6 The OS X one is here for four months: http://macntfs-3g.blogspot.com/ The UBLIO DMG is this one: http://hem.bredband.net/unsound/ntfs-3g/NTFS-3G_1.2129-ublio-catacombae.dmg The most common reasons for performance issues (besides the driver being unoptimized on all platforms) are listed here: http://ntfs-3g.org/support.html#cpu100 Extremely slow external USB performance is/was very typical because of this issue (USB2->USB1) on several OSes: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/06/seagate-snubs-linux Regards, Szaka
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?loom.20080210T014535-68>