Arch Linux

Nacht

Member

Registered: 2008-10-22

Posts: 8

[SOLVED] Performance and reliability of NTFS reading with ntfs-3g?

(slightly off-topic introduction) I recently installed Arch (and linux, for that matter) for the first time. Most things went fine, some issue with my sound card, but I fixed it. But, having tried out lots of DE, WM and apps, I feel I'm ready to install it 'for real' this time. I'm going to re-partition and do a clean install. I have a dual boot configuration with Vista.

Now, my question: I've been thinking a lot about my partition setup, and I would like to have a large partition of my 320 GB disc to be for storing data like music, movies, etc., and I want it to be accesible for both windows and linux. I think I'll go for NTFS (not entirely sure why..:rolleyes:)

-Will I notice a significant performance hit when accessing or manipulating large amount of data while working in Linux? (2.26 GHZ dual core, intel GMA 4500MD, 3 GB RAM, if it matters)
-is it reliable, or is there a higher chance of data corruption when writing from linux?
-what about security? I don't know much about security issues in Linux anyway, but will using an NTFS partition compromise my security (with regards to virusses, etc.) in any way?

Last edited by Nacht (2008-10-28 08:02:48)

pointone

Wiki Admin

From: Waterloo, ON

Registered: 2008-02-21

Posts: 379

Re: [SOLVED] Performance and reliability of NTFS reading with ntfs-3g?

-Will I notice a significant performance hit when accessing or manipulating large amount of data while working in Linux? (2.26 GHZ dual core, intel GMA 4500MD, 3 GB RAM, if it matters)

http://www.ntfs-3g.org/performance.html

-is it reliable, or is there a higher chance of data corruption when writing from linux?

http://www.ntfs-3g.org/quality.html

-what about security? I don't know much about security issues in Linux anyway, but will using an NTFS partition compromise my security (with regards to virusses, etc.) in any way?

Only while running Windows.

I think I'll go for NTFS (not entirely sure why..:rolleyes:)

Have you considered using ext3 and installing this?

---

M*cr*s*ft: Who needs quality when you have marketing?

Nacht

Member

Registered: 2008-10-22

Posts: 8

Re: [SOLVED] Performance and reliability of NTFS reading with ntfs-3g?

...of all the places, I forget to look on the official ntfs-3g site. Typical. Thanks for the pointer.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the numbers, but I gather ntfs-3g is slower than ext3, but uses less CPU.

pointone wrote:

Nacht wrote:

I think I'll go for NTFS (not entirely sure why.. )

Have you considered using ext3 and installing this?

I think I read a complaint about ext IFS somewhere.. suppose that stuck.
I should just decide which OS I'm going to be using most first.. Because if it's Arch, using NTFS maybe doesn't make much sense after all.

[EDIT]But, besides facts, maybe an opinion would be useful too. Has anyway tried to use NTFS as his/her basic data partition and, I don't know, played movies of it while in Linux? Or is it just too silly to begin with anyway?

Last edited by Nacht (2008-10-26 15:31:37)

AD28

Member

Registered: 2008-09-16

Posts: 161

Re: [SOLVED] Performance and reliability of NTFS reading with ntfs-3g?

But, besides facts, maybe an opinion would be useful too. Has anyway tried to use NTFS as his/her basic data partition and, I don't know, played movies of it while in Linux?

I use my 400GB ntfs data partition regularly with Arch.  My WinXP has always been split into system/data partitions, so it was just easier for me to auto mount my data partition in Arch with ntfs-3g rather than going through the hassle of revamping its entire filesystem.

I've had no problems playing videos, music, etc.  I also have my home folders symlinked to my ntfs folders, like ~/music -> "/windows/Data/My Documents/My Music" and so on.

Oh and as far as windows-ext3 vs linux-ntfs, I originally went with linux-ntfs just out of convenience, but I'd do the same if I went back and redid it.

Last edited by AD28 (2008-10-26 19:31:40)

i.like.bread

Member

Registered: 2008-05-18

Posts: 2

Re: [SOLVED] Performance and reliability of NTFS reading with ntfs-3g?

I'd say ntfs is the way to go. I have found mounting ext3 from windows to be harder than it should be.

lunch_box

Member

Registered: 2008-10-21

Posts: 16

Re: [SOLVED] Performance and reliability of NTFS reading with ntfs-3g?

I have a separate "media" hard disk formatted as ntfs and it works fine in both arch and windows. There are drivers to be able to mount and use ext3 partitions in windows if you decided to do that but I generally had issues with them. That may have just been me though...

icetonic

Member

From: Germany

Registered: 2008-10-21

Posts: 104

Re: [SOLVED] Performance and reliability of NTFS reading with ntfs-3g?

My DATA partition is a 250 GB NTFS Partition... I even have all important configs stored there and symlinked to my home partition!

I never had problems with ntfs-3g, the only annoying thing (that has nothing to do with the driver) is that you (of course) can't set unix rights on files...

I have deleted my windows long time ago but atm it's impossible for me to convert the partition to ext3 and I have no real reason to do it....

R00KIE

Forum Fellow

From: Between a computer and a chair

Registered: 2008-09-14

Posts: 4,734

Re: [SOLVED] Performance and reliability of NTFS reading with ntfs-3g?

As it is an internal disk I guess I would go with ext3, I took a look at the ntfs-3g page and the figures there don't seem to fit my experience (that or I'm missing something) because in my machine ntfs-3g seems to use a lot of cpu time when handling large amounts of data. Also I believe there aren't any tools to fix errors in ntfs partitions from within linux (please do correct me if I'm wrong, I remember that when I was using ubuntu I needed to go into windows to fix some errors because I couldn't fix errors in the file system while running linux).
Now on my laptop there is only one partition with ntfs, the windows one and I haven't used it for quite some time I have to say
As far as reliability goes, while using ntfs partitions from linux I never had a single problem, it looks like rock solid to me.

---

R00KIE
Tm90aGluZyB0byBzZWUgaGVyZSwgbW92ZSBhbG9uZy4K

b0uncyfr0

Member

Registered: 2008-05-11

Posts: 140

Re: [SOLVED] Performance and reliability of NTFS reading with ntfs-3g?

My data partition is ext3. Its easily accesible on any Windows OS after i install ifs-driver.
http://www.fs-driver.org/

Ntfs-3g has also been very stable with me, it works perfectly on nix now.

Nacht

Member

Registered: 2008-10-22

Posts: 8

Re: [SOLVED] Performance and reliability of NTFS reading with ntfs-3g?

Ok, so to conclude, accessing NTFS from linux is a bit more stable/easy than accessing ext3 from windows. However, after having given the issue a bit more thought, I decided to go for ext3 after all. The reason I wanted to stay with NTFS was because I could always go back to windows easily, without having issues accessing my data for the rest of my laptop's life. But after having toyed around a bit more, I'm quite confident I'll be able to make Arch work as I want it to, so I'll just go for ext3. I'll use windows mostly just for playing games anyway.

But everyone, thanks a lot for your input

moljac024

Member

From: Serbia

Registered: 2008-01-29

Posts: 2,676

Re: [SOLVED] Performance and reliability of NTFS reading with ntfs-3g?

But, besides facts, maybe an opinion would be useful too. Has anyway tried to use NTFS as his/her basic data partition and, I don't know, played movies of it while in Linux?

I use my 400GB ntfs data partition regularly with Arch.  My WinXP has always been split into system/data partitions, so it was just easier for me to auto mount my data partition in Arch with ntfs-3g rather than going through the hassle of revamping its entire filesystem.

I've had no problems playing videos, music, etc.  I also have my home folders symlinked to my ntfs folders, like ~/music -> "/windows/Data/My Documents/My Music" and so on.

Oh and as far as windows-ext3 vs linux-ntfs, I originally went with linux-ntfs just out of convenience, but I'd do the same if I went back and redid it.

I'm on a different boat. I'm using windows XP on one machine with an 320GB ext3 formatted data drive

---

The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck, is the day they make a vacuum cleaner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if they tell you that I've lost my mind, maybe it's not gone just a little hard to find...

SiC

Member

From: Liverpool, England

Registered: 2008-01-10

Posts: 430

Re: [SOLVED] Performance and reliability of NTFS reading with ntfs-3g?

I think everyone has had questions about this at some point when migrating from another OS, in my case I had the misfortune of having to stick with a FAT32 partition on my external 500GB drive, as I also have to be able to access my data from a Mac. 

Bloody annoying it is, but thankfully the Mac is going soon, so I will be able to convert it to NTFS... I still need to be able to access it from Windows machines from time to time, and as it's only used for storing Music, Video and ISO images, it's not a huge issue.  To sum it up, I'd always go for the ntfs route anytime, you never know the future, some window patch may break the fs-driver compatibility, but you can be fairly sure linux will work with whatever.