> >> And I didn't advocate moving > >> ntfs to fuse, still that was done and the resulting filesystem at the > >> moment happens to outperform the kernel one in every respect ;) > > > > Gad. Why? > > Miklos has the wrong end of the stick. No-one has "moved" ntfs to > fuse. And the fuse implementation doesn't outperform the kernel > implementation in anything at all. However the kernel one as > available in the kernel source tree doesn't have many write-features, > it can only overwrite files, it cannot create/delete files, etc. So I > guess if you define "performance" to mean "features" then sure > ntfsmount/ntfs-3g have more features than the public kernel driver. > If you define "performance" to mean "speed" then no ntfsmount/ntfs-3g > can't compare to the kernel except in very limited and meaningless > benchmarks... OK, I was exaggerating (notice the smiley). But I do have a feeling (and just a feeling, no hard data), that ntfs-3g is making the in-kernel ntfs filesystem increasingly irrelevant. And yes, that's mostly because of the features, but also because the performance is not at all as bad, as some people would think a userspace filesystem has to be. Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
