Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:05:45 +0200 From: Jan Henrik Sylvester <me@janh.de> To: ports-list freebsd <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Cc: Babak Farrokhi <farrokhi@FreeBSD.org>, Alejandro Pulver <alepulver@FreeBSD.org> Subject: ntfsprogs vs. fusefs-ntfs (ntfs-3g) reliability? Message-ID: <48A2A3E9.1040503@janh.de>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Is there a particular reason our ntfsprogs port did not get updated for a year but now it has? So far I did use ntfs-3g for mounting and ntfsprogs for resizing etc. with very few problems. Once on copying many files, two of them were only partially written with error messages "Bad address" and "No such file or directory". On the second attempt, I was able to copy them. (Moreover, using qemu volumes residing on ntfs-3g does not work, but I guess that is more of a fuse issue than an ntfs-3g one.) Today, our ntfsprogs port got updated to 2.0.0. On ntfs-3g.org, it is stated that "[they] warn against the usage of ntfsprogs-2.0.0 because of major reliability issues (write failure, sparse file corruption, utility hang, etc). Use an earlier version instead until they get fixed." Some google search shows that former ntfsprogs developer(s) are now working on ntfs-3g and the authors of both projects have some discrepancies: http://forum.linux-ntfs.org/viewtopic.php?t=741 http://www.nabble.com/Re:-ntfsprogs-2.0.0-released-p12958587.html All I can tell is that ntfsprogs really has not been updated for a year and ntfs-3g seems to be actively developed. Either the ntfs-3g developer is correct and using ntfsprogs 2.0.0 is dangerous, or he is incorrect, which would make using ntfs-3g a little dubious. Do you have any information from a third party? Do you think that both FreeBSD ports ntfs-3g and ntfsprogs 2.0.0 are reliable? Thanks, Jan Henrik
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48A2A3E9.1040503>