View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
fiore n00b
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:08 am Post subject: what do you think about ntfs-3g? |
|
|
I need a ntfs write support for my external hard disk.
I think to emerge ntfs-3g...what do you think about it? it works fine?
Thaks!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hans0r Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 122 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
i like it. it does what it promises, has good performance and most importantly it never crashed on me so far. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tboloo Guru
Joined: 20 Jan 2006 Posts: 403 Location: Grodzisq, Poland
|
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Works good for me. Speed is good, mount drives flavlessly. I masked 0.20061115 version, because I'm running arch and 0.20061115 required unstable sys-fs/fuse which didn't work for me. _________________ The clock is ticking, brothers and sisters, counting down to Armageddon. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nightbringer n00b
Joined: 11 Nov 2006 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm using 0.20061115-r1 with fuse 2.6.0 and it seems to work ok. Can't say I really trust it yet since I've only copied about 10GB of stuff to the partition I'm using it on. That being said it hasn't corrupted anything thus far and the write speeds are more than acceptable. My only complaint is that it does seem to be very cpu heavy (generally around 25-30% on my 2600+). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Drone1 Apprentice
Joined: 27 Sep 2005 Posts: 232 Location: United States of Texas
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ntfs3g has some real promise. As example:
Working in a mixed PC environment, Windows machines for users, linux servers, OS reloads and installs are done every so often. Mostly for new machines, but occasionally a hard drive will corrupt. We've set up and had unattended running for a while with FreeDOS, but we see another option opening up.
For testing, we formatted a drive with ntfs3g, gave it the ntfs partition, and copied ntdetect.com, ntldr.exe, boot.ini files to the partition. Slapped that drive in a pc, and booted it. Failed with 'unable to load system config', or some such thing. The normal error you get when your system hive is corrupt or cannot be found. In this case 'that path' it didn't exist at all. You should see where this is headed.
We now have the abilitiy in linux to create an ntfs partition, make it bootable, copy the directory structure for an automated install to the local drive, all from a network boot setup, and without using FreeDOS. This was, imo, one of the last hurdles with regard to full Windows installation management in linux. Couple that with moving all apps' installable through batch files and msiexec, and installation life becomes quite automated. There is still some work to be done, but full ntfs control now opens many doors for us. We are also planning on, and have already tested, adding UBimage (UBCD locally) to the installation process, so CD's/DVD's/USB drives will no longer need to be carried around if we need them. Just reboot, select preferred partition to boot and you're there. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
abester Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 09 May 2005 Posts: 93
|
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
It works, and hasn't crashed on me after several new boots and several 10's of GBs transferred.
However:
It is inreliable in terms of speed. Usually the transfer speeds are 'nice' (more than 10mb/s), but sometimes an odd quirk happens. I had this single file, 750 MB, and it took a very long time to transfer, at the end CPU utilization was close to 100% and transfer rates down to 600kb/s.
But it works. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
irgu Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 25 Apr 2003 Posts: 131
|
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
abester wrote: | Usually the transfer speeds are 'nice' (more than 10mb/s), but sometimes an odd quirk happens. I had this single file, 750 MB, and it took a very long time to transfer, at the end CPU utilization was close to 100% and transfer rates down to 600kb/s. |
Do you use only nautilus when it's slow or also in command line use? There is a nautilus bug which causes slow copy, independently on the used filesystem: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=363400 You may try to use a different file manager, it's said to help. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|