From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 19 18:09:24 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F71106567C for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:09:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from shoesoft@gmx.net) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B6ED8FC2C for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:09:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from shoesoft@gmx.net) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2009 18:09:17 -0000 Received: from 85-127-16-58.dynamic.xdsl-line.inode.at (EHLO taxman.pepperland) [85.127.16.58] by mail.gmx.net (mp006) with SMTP; 19 Jan 2009 19:09:17 +0100 X-Authenticated: #16703784 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/8ORw10Ln8dfZ0nsYtv8jI1kedJz9luKQWET5HDH F5cnVukHEZ8RXQ From: Stefan Ehmann To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:09:07 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.10.4 (FreeBSD/7.1-RELEASE-p1; KDE/4.1.4; i386; ; ) References: <49742ADA.5080509@FreeBSD.org> <20090119081843.GA49607@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200901191909.09733.shoesoft@gmx.net> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.51 Cc: Luigi Rizzo , Robert Watson Subject: Re: NTFS in GENERIC: opt-in or opt-out? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:09:25 -0000 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.