[Discuss] any decent NTFS implementations for Linux?

[richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)]

On 7/23/2014 3:47 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> That certainly sounds plausible.   But when I look for benchmarks for
> other FUSE based filesystems I see better numbers.

NTFS performance comes from caching. FUSE doesn't do caching well. Other
FUSE file systems that aren't as cache-intensive will perform better.

The Tuxera embedded Linux NTFS driver is a native kernel driver.


> Now, I see some potential methodology issues with the Phoronix benchmark; but
> ZFS FUSE seems to do relatively well against the native filesystems
> with which it is being compared.

My experience with ZFS FUSE and native ZFS on the same hardware is that
ZFS FUSE performance is abysmally poor. On my test box the ZFS FUSE
throughput was around ~10MB/s per disk; ZFS native kernel driver was
~60MB/s per disk. Like NTFS, ZFS performance is highly dependent on
cache which, as noted, FUSE does not do well. FUSE is also
single-threaded which makes things even more cpu-bound.

-- 
Rich P.