NTFS vs ext4

**froggyswamp** · June 20th, 2009

Originally Posted by juancarlospaco

Sabayon is using EXT4 since few years works fine, EXT4 is faster than NTFS,
and dont get locked if you reboot, and takes more care about data integrity than NTFS.

and (EXT4) checks the file system so fast that seems to me it's just pretending to be checking. Seriously. Ext3 took like 10-20 times longer. Also when I installed Fedora 11 the other day it reported bad blocks on /dev/sda3 but Ext4 found nothing..

I'm also somewhat worried about Btrfs - Oracle started and pioneered its development but now since they buy Sun they will also have ZFS and hence might question Btrfs's relevance, since they're leading the development - without them the development would (considerably) slow down.

**filip007** · July 10th, 2010

NTFS is crap...i have noticed slack on files, EXT4 don't have that.

Files are actually bigger on NTFS and Windows have a lot of dll's with slack, now i know why some need quad cores and 16GB RAM+.

**Xianath** · July 10th, 2010

Are we talking filesystems or the Linux implementations thereof? NTFS has a lot of features not implemented in Linux, and what does work consumes an unnatural amount of resources. A real benchmark would have to be Windows Server 2008 NTFS vs. Linux EXT4 on the same box. On a hunch, I'd say EXT4 would outperform NTFS by a small margin, but NTFS significantly outshines EXT4 in terms of features.

Given that EXT4 is practically unusable on Windows, and NTFS is practically unusable on Linux (works well enough to swap files around with Windows, that's about it), there's no real choice to be made. Whatever your OS is, use its native filesystem.

Oh, and JFS is dead