![]() ![]() That said, FAT is inherently slower, and many say less reliable, than NTFS, so in practice I don't know which is faster or more reliable under Linux. This imposes a performance penalty on NTFS under Linux, but not on FAT and it makes for a more complex software path that is at least theoretically more susceptible to bugs. Examples include a computer that boots between multiple OSes that do not include Windows NT/200x/XP/Vista/7 (say, Linux and FreeBSD, NetBSD and Windows Me, or Linux and OS X), a removable disk that's transported between a Windows-only computer at one location and a Linux-only computer at another, or a disk intended for long-term archival storage (you don't know what OSes you may have available in a year or two or five).Īnother issue with NTFS is that the NTFS-3g driver that Ubuntu uses is a user-space driver, vs. (Such utilities do exist for FAT.) Thus, if there's much chance that you'll need to run a filesystem check on a disk when you don't have ready access to a Windows system, NTFS is a poor choice. This is one of the problems with NTFS: There are no Linux utilities to check and repair NTFS. Also, note that sometimes NTFS gets marked as "dirty" if there was an unclean shutdown, you need to boot into Windows, run chkdsk on the drive, and then shut it down again. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |