Pro's and Con's NTFS vs. RiserFS

[Abzstrak]

Hey guys,

just wanted to see everyones opinions on the pros and cons of these two FS's...

please don't make any of the pros (or cons) the OS itself (like RiserFS cause it won't run on windows)


Thanx

 

[faolan]

For the basic things that matter, RiserFS and NTFS v5 (The version in 2000) are about the same. Both are journaling, both can support quotas and encryption depending on how the OS is set up. Both support user permissions, etc...

As far as speed between the two and other things, I'm not sure.

 

[n0cmonkey]

NTFS seems to have better support in windows than rfs has in linux. How many bugs did the last kernel have regarding rfs? Fortunately I dont have to worry about rfs since ffs works fine for me

 

[MGMorden]

Personaly Sun's XFS for Linux is starting to look very appealing in my eyes. I've used ReiserFS on my machine for quite a while now. It works out to be a VERY reliable and trouble-free solution but (though the benchmarks say differently) the machine feels just a little more sluggish to me w/ ReiserFS comapred to ext2.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Personaly Sun's XFS for Linux is starting to look very appealing in my eyes. I've used ReiserFS on my machine for quite a while now. It works out to be a VERY reliable and trouble-free solution but (though the benchmarks say differently) the machine feels just a little more sluggish to me w/ ReiserFS comapred to ext2. >>



It is going to. The hacks they use to journal the information make an obvious performance hit. That is one of the problems with ext3fs. I know rfs was considered too slow a while back, but I have actually never used it.

 

[cmv]

Actually one day ReiserFS should be a choice on the Windows platform. Least that is what Hans Reiser wants to do. Whether he can get the courts to open up the need specs from Microsoft is the cliff hanger .

 

[Bremen]

<< please don't make any of the pros (or cons) the OS itself (like RiserFS cause it won't run on windows) >>

kindof hard since there really isn't very much hard evidence to show which is better etc. There have been a few benchmarks comparing different journaling file systems under linux, but since NTFS isn't writable under linux it is very difficult to compare performance. As for the technical details on how each works (could be used for a meaningful comparison), not many people are intimately familiar with each, and so the result is a lack of meaningful discussion here.

Until NTFS, XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, and ext3 are all fully supported under linux we will be unable to tell which really has the best performance.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< please don't make any of the pros (or cons) the OS itself (like RiserFS cause it won't run on windows) >>

kindof hard since there really isn't very much hard evidence to show which is better etc. There have been a few benchmarks comparing different journaling file systems under linux, but since NTFS isn't writable under linux it is very difficult to compare performance. As for the technical details on how each works (could be used for a meaningful comparison), not many people are intimately familiar with each, and so the result is a lack of meaningful discussion here.

Until NTFS, XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, and ext3 are all fully supported under linux we will be unable to tell which really has the best performance. >>



Until then, use BSD and FFS!

 

[MGMorden]

I doubt NTFS will/would ever be used as a primary fs under Linux. I mean with it's permissions it SHOULD be possible, but NTFS is still a MS standard that they have to write their code to adhere to. The other fs's are coded openly and hence things don't have to work around someone else's standards. I could be proven wrong though . . . (I still think XFS will be the one though).

 

[Blundar]

unlike others, I have had much problems with resierfs under linux 2.2 and 2.4 ...
The problems seem to arise over the fact that in earlier kernels, the software raid5 code and the reiserfs code piss on each other. RAID1 seems fine, but who wants to do RAID1 or 0 with a limited number of drives?
I gave up altogether on reiserfs on the PPC... the PPC kernel wasn't stable enough, at least 6 months ago.
From what I have seen of XFS (SGI's implementation of it) it seems phat.

 

[RedBeard0531]

IMHO this is a good thread for the HT forum.

 

[DAM]

weird to me riserfs felt a bit faster, and it worked fine with 2.4.3 and now im trying it out with 2.4.6 which has some updates for people using riserfs.





dam()

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< weird to me riserfs felt a bit faster, and it worked fine with 2.4.3 and now im trying it out with 2.4.6 which has some updates for people using riserfs.
dam() >>



riserfs is slower. By the nature of it being a journaled filesystem. The writes that need to take place in a journaling filesystem are going to slow it down. The developers may have done a good enough job though to make the impact less noticeable. Didnt 2.4.5 break riserfs?

Deffinately time for a code fork