From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 25 21:34:00 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745B51065693 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:34:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alepulver@FreeBSD.org) Received: from relay02.pair.com (relay02.pair.com [209.68.5.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 12A328FC14 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:33:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alepulver@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 77041 invoked by uid 0); 25 Aug 2008 21:07:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO deimos.mars.bsd) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 25 Aug 2008 21:07:18 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 190.188.5.83 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:07:10 -0300 From: Alejandro Pulver To: Jan Henrik Sylvester Message-ID: <20080825180710.784a14ec@deimos.mars.bsd> In-Reply-To: <48A2A3E9.1040503@janh.de> References: <48A2A3E9.1040503@janh.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.4.0 (GTK+ 2.12.10; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/aapi0GvbuIw1tENOI3I.40d"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 Cc: Babak Farrokhi , ports-list freebsd Subject: Re: ntfsprogs vs. fusefs-ntfs (ntfs-3g) reliability? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:34:00 -0000 --Sig_/aapi0GvbuIw1tENOI3I.40d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:05:45 +0200 Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote: > Is there a particular reason our ntfsprogs port did not get updated for=20 > a year but now it has? >=20 None I'm aware of, I just received a request and did it one day, as it was very similar to the fusefs-ntfs port. > So far I did use ntfs-3g for mounting and ntfsprogs for resizing etc.=20 > with very few problems. Once on copying many files, two of them were=20 > only partially written with error messages "Bad address" and "No such=20 > file or directory". On the second attempt, I was able to copy them.=20 > (Moreover, using qemu volumes residing on ntfs-3g does not work, but I=20 > guess that is more of a fuse issue than an ntfs-3g one.) >=20 > Today, our ntfsprogs port got updated to 2.0.0. On ntfs-3g.org, it is=20 > stated that "[they] warn against the usage of ntfsprogs-2.0.0 because of= =20 > major reliability issues (write failure, sparse file corruption, utility= =20 > hang, etc). Use an earlier version instead until they get fixed." >=20 > Some google search shows that former ntfsprogs developer(s) are now=20 > working on ntfs-3g and the authors of both projects have some=20 > discrepancies: http://forum.linux-ntfs.org/viewtopic.php?t=3D741=20 > http://www.nabble.com/Re:-ntfsprogs-2.0.0-released-p12958587.html >=20 > All I can tell is that ntfsprogs really has not been updated for a year=20 > and ntfs-3g seems to be actively developed. >=20 > Either the ntfs-3g developer is correct and using ntfsprogs 2.0.0 is=20 > dangerous, or he is incorrect, which would make using ntfs-3g a little=20 > dubious. >=20 > Do you have any information from a third party? Do you think that both=20 > FreeBSD ports ntfs-3g and ntfsprogs 2.0.0 are reliable? >=20 I haven't tested the latest ntfsprogs very much, but both suffer from a reliability issue described in their respective README.FreeBSD (as other file systems using fuse4bsd). > Thanks, > Jan Henrik --Sig_/aapi0GvbuIw1tENOI3I.40d Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkizHv4ACgkQiV05EpRcP2FiYgCfYm5ng6k+S4c8VHp4Jfi4gZSA NVcAn3BcpQ+Tfo8c0HO5+S5EQ92zuWRa =pmoD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/aapi0GvbuIw1tENOI3I.40d--