[Discuss] any decent NTFS implementations for Linux?

[bogstad at pobox.com (Bill Bogstad)]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Richard Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/23/2014 2:02 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
>> The problem seems to be 100% bad filesystem software.
>
> No, it's FUSE.
>
> FUSE runs in user space. Disk I/O happens in kernel space. This means
> that read and write operations require much context switching. The
> overhead for this is very high.

That certainly sounds plausible.   But when I look for benchmarks for
other FUSE based filesystems
I see better numbers.   It seems that other implementers using FUSE
just do a better job
the the NTFS-3g guys.  Of course, the NTFS-3g guys also sell a
commerical product so they have no incentive
to improve the perrfomance of the free code.

http://www.csl.sri.com/users/gehani/papers/SAC-2010.FUSE.pdf
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=zfs_fuse_performance

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.
Certainly much better then the FUSE based NTFS-3g results that I'm seeing for
my rough and dirty testing.

Bill Bogstad