Does it suck down an inordinate number of CPU cycles while being slow, or is it simply constrained by other considerations? I don't believe that write performance is a particular concern, so long as it writes uncorrupted, but eating too much CPU _might_ be problematic. (Or it might not be, I'm not sure exactly what's running on the box.)
-DMZ From: David Finkel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 2:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [UM-LINUX] NTFS Support on Linux status? ntfs-3g definitely supports large files. The only problem I have with it is the inherently sluggish performance from being fuse. I've never had a problem with ntfs-3g, save the occasional improper removal/shutdown, which may mark the filesystem dirty. As far as I know, this can only be fixed by running an fsck under windows on the filesystem. -David On 05/06/10 13:46, Neil Sikka wrote: Yea I know the ntfs-3g driver is very good. I use it a Lot on linux. I think its a fuse driver. _____ From: David Zakar <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 13:34:03 -0400 To: <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Subject: [UM-LINUX] NTFS Support on Linux status? Anyone know what the current status of NTFS is on Linux, specifically reading and writing very large files (> 4GB)? I might need to shuttle around some of those huge files in a cross-platform fashion (Linux/Mac/PC), and NTFS seemed like a reasonable choice. -DMZ
