Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:09:07 +0100 From: Stefan Ehmann <shoesoft@gmx.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NTFS in GENERIC: opt-in or opt-out? Message-ID: <200901191909.09733.shoesoft@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901191632100.36163@fledge.watson.org> References: <49742ADA.5080509@FreeBSD.org> <20090119081843.GA49607@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901191632100.36163@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 19 January 2009 17:33:57 Robert Watson wrote: > 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. In that thread it is claimed that "Kernel NTFS support is about 10x faster than ntfs-3g on FreeBSD". That's contrary to my experience: I tried reading a ~1GB directory containing large files from a USB disk. ntfs-3g: ~6.1MB/s kernel ntfs: ~3.7MB/s ntfs-3g is rather slow and kernel ntfs is even worse. For smaller files ntfs-3g also is faster for me. ntfs-3g seems to do lots of unnecessary read operations. gstat(8) shows read speed of ~13-14MB/s. So half of the data seems to be thrown away.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200901191909.09733.shoesoft>