View Full Version : linux-ntfs vs ntfs-3g

November 16th, 2008, 05:34 PM
Hi all,
I would like to know people's viewpoints (specifically filesystem folks) about the performance and reliability of linux-ntfs vs ntfs-3g.

I read an interesting thread (a mini flame-war) about the two of them at linux-ntfs forum (http://forum.linux-ntfs.org/viewtopic.php?t=741)

From the thread the following differences I could make out

a. Linux-ntfs (some part of it) has been integrated in the kernel.
b. NTFS-3g started life as a fork of linux-ntfs
c. NTFS-3g has been more widely known (I know about this) and perhaps tested as well (Dunno really)

So my questions are :-

a. Does it make sense to install both ntfsprogs as well as ntfs-3g or just use one or the other?

b. Which of the two is more reliable, better maintained and has more features ?

c. Which of the two projects people perceive as making grounds in the near and medium future?

November 16th, 2008, 05:36 PM
ntfs-3g has generally been more feature-packed than linux-ntfs AFAIK, ntfs-3g offered full write support long before linux-ntfs for example, I'd say it's more widely tested and used because of the amount of people who switched to it early on because of this

November 16th, 2008, 06:02 PM
AFAIK ntfs-3g is more widely used.

November 16th, 2008, 07:01 PM
ntfs-3g is the preferred driver -- it's derived off the linux-ntfs codebase and has a larger userbase. It's also the only driver that supports write access to NTFS safely -- linux-ntfs has much more restrictions on how files may be written to.

However, you still need ntfsprogs even if you use ntfs-3g, as the filesystem information query tools, resize, creation, etc tools are a part of ntfsprogs, not ntfs-3g. Also, linux-ntfs natively mounts via the kernel while ntfs-3g requires FUSE. This also MIGHT mean linux-ntfs for reading NTFS has faster performance.

November 16th, 2008, 08:25 PM
I have trouble with large files writing to NTFS. It is very slow.