Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Emacs23
wrote on the 1 Dec 08 at 21:36
|
|
|
-1
You better use windows.
|
|
young
wrote on the 1 Dec 08 at 22:29
|
|
|
|
this is not an idea, it's very similar to "make ubuntu better" or "make ubuntu faster" ideas, sorry. anyway, there are more important things to work on at the moment.
|
|
|
Yes Emacs23, if you want performance, you better use windows.
I think Emacs23 would better let everyone decide on their own what they use. Ubuntu is supposed to be Linux for human beings, not Linux for those human beings who can accurately describe their problem with slow disk performance.
If it's slow, it should be fixed.
0 though because I personally didn't notice the problem.
|
|
kreep
wrote on the 1 Dec 08 at 22:38
|
|
|
what frederik said, except +1, since even though i didn't notice it, if it's there, i consider it important enough to be fixed.
there are lots of people dual booting out there. windows doesn't readily use linux fses, but it doesn't mean linux can't or shouldn't use windows fses with reasonable (compared to native) performance.
|
|
|
There is an NTFS driver in the kernel.
But it isn't really used. Most distributions use the NTFS-3G driver which runs with FUSE.
You can sponsor the development of NTFS-3G.
http://www.ntfs-3g.org/commercial.html
|
|
|
|
Also, it is more important to improve the performance of native Linux file systems such as ext3, ext4, and upcoming btrfs, tux3, etc.
|
|
|
|
LOL Windows is also stupidly slow to write to NTFS formatted drives. My Ubuntu system performs on par with Windows when writing to NTFS partitions.
|
|
Ssdg
wrote on the 1 Dec 08 at 22:58
|
|
|
I agree with Eldmannen, We'd better work on our filesystems.
my external hard drives are ext3 formated and work fine. -1
|
|
diegoj
wrote on the 2 Dec 08 at 01:49
|
|
|
> In terms of faster NTFS writing, not really sure. There aren't many situations I can think of that fast NTFS performance would benefit linux. Can you name some diegoj?
I use a NTFS external hard disk. I'm not the owner, so I can't format it with ext3 of FAT32 or whatever. When I copy some big files (1GB), my system goes slow.
Thus, I have a dual PC with Windows and Ubuntu, moving files to the Windows partition dificults me making other thing.
Other situations could be using SMB protocol to read/write windows drives.
> -1
> You better use windows.
In my opinion, it's an stupid answer. It doesn't apport anything.
|
|
|
+1 because the main benefit here is for people who want to use Wubi, but whose systems are not top-of-the-line.
I used Wubi twice, once with Kubuntu 8.04-KDE4, on a 512 mb system, and once with Ubuntu 8.10 on a 384 mb system.
The kubuntu install actually worked pretty well, but the ubuntu installation was slower than windows by about an order of magnitude, with the NTFS driver installed.
If that had been my first run with ubuntu, I would have left ubuntu without a second look.
|
|
Magnes
wrote on the 2 Dec 08 at 08:42
|
|
|
|
Strange problem because NTFS-3G when I used it was very, very fast both in writing and reading. Something changed in ntfs-3g or it's just a problem on some computers?
|
|
diegoj
wrote on the 2 Dec 08 at 15:04
|
|
|
> @diegoj, but how much slower are we talking about? And when you say system goes slow, CPU or transfer?
The CPU is overloaded. The transfer is OK.
|
|
|
|
I find that GVFS slows the entire system down when moving a large amount of files.
|
|
diegoj
wrote on the 3 Dec 08 at 01:00
|
|
|
> Perhaps the CPU utilization you are seeing is because USB doesn't support DMA?
> In any case, 80% CPU shouldn't cause the system to become unusable. It sounds like you have hit some kind of bug.
OK. Thanks, maybe you're right. I'll study it.
|
|
goliath
wrote on the 21 Dec 08 at 22:10
|
|
|
I am a pretty newbie to the ubuntu family. Since I had some trouble with an internal drive, thought it's a good idea to move to Ubuntu from the original installation. Since I am using NTFS on an external USB HDD I experienced slow performance of my virtual machine stored on it. Transfer is about 10MB/s, if I run it from the USB drive overall perceived system performance is bad. I understand that NTFS is proprietary and that might be the reason for not a perfect integration. If I copy the VM to the local FS, performance is o.k.
However as a user, I am hitting a limitation here, which let's me consider after a day getting the system up and running to go back to this proprietary system I was ready to abondon on one of my computers under my control...
Conclusion: we live in a world which is not black or white. And simple users like me will see a low performance and will turn away. That's a pitty.
|
|
borsook
wrote on the 22 Dec 08 at 00:26
|
|
|
|
@goliath - what limitation do you mean? From my experience NTFS works very fast under Ubuntu. Maybe the problem is not with the FS on your USB drive? You could try to format the drive with a different FS and see if it helps.
|
|
Rockabye
wrote on the 28 Apr 09 at 08:52
|
|
|
I've been moving a 438GB folder over to an ntfs partition on a seperate hard drive for the last 7 hours. It says it'll take 5 more hours. It started out at 21MB/s (at about 70% cpu usage) but is now down to 4.1MB/s (at 15% cpu). My first thought was that ubuntu was slow and buggy when it comes to copying files but now I realize it's just this filesystem. If I had known ntfs would be so slow I would've done something else.
+1
I've found that reading FROM ntfs is pretty fast though.
|
|
su301
wrote on the 4 Feb 10 at 17:00
|
|
|
Copy 15GB file from ntfs to ext4 took around 15 minutes, it doesn't look fast, but I can bear.
But copy the same file back to ntfs may take about 3 hours or more
|
|
|
Right now I am only using ubuntu though my two other sata internal drives are NTFS formatted.. Trying to get the data off of them before I wipe them. This is quite the painful task...
80GB this round... 3.8MBps at most. vs windows was 130MBps avg.
Disks are capable of the following.
/dev/sdb:
Timing cached reads: 6276 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3138.63 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 394 MB in 3.02 seconds = 130.61 MB/sec
root@UBITU:/dev/disk# hdparm -tT /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 6342 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3172.05 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 250 MB in 3.01 seconds = 83.10 MB/sec
root@UBITU:/dev/disk# hdparm -tT /dev/sdc
/dev/sdc:
Timing cached reads: 6862 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3432.35 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 334 MB in 3.01 seconds = 110.89 MB/sec
root@UBITU:/dev/disk#
|
Post your comment
|
