NTFS vs Ext File Systems
 

Hi all.


Both NTFS and Ext2/Ext3 are great file systems; I guess Ext3 is superior to NTFS. I'd like to know more about how Ext3 (the journaling version of Ext2, as far as I know) and NTFS differ, and the advantages and disadvantages of the two file systems.

I'd like all of you to compare and contrast the two file systems, so that me and other newbies can learn more about the two.


Thanks.

i will go into this deeper (or someone else will) but first i would like you to answer a question first, cooL :D ?
i am just trying to understand this question, as one filesystem is used for linux and the other is used for windows...so since you can't go and setup a windows box using a ext3, and you can't go setup a linux box with ntfs, how does this question come up?
since your asking this in a linux fourm, a question like "what would be better ext2/ext3 or ReiserFS?" would make more sense, so i just don't understand why you are comparing these two filesystems...it really don't matter to me why you are, but i just dont' understand and would like you to follow up :D

Here is the best explanation I have found of Linux filesystems.

NTFS is a propritary filesystem used by Microsoft Windows NT and above, so good luck as the kernel hackers haven't figured it out yet.

My understanding of the question is that Ken Ju-On wants to know how the two file systems compare to each other, in terms of features (journaling, ACL support, etc)... not which one he should install linux on.

Is that what you mean Ken?

linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net

Cool, good question. :)

Looking back at it, my question may have been absurd. As this is a Linux forum, I believe the majority of people here would be knowledgeable about both Windows and Linux. What I wish to know is not how Windows would survive on Ext2/Ext3 or how Linux would run on NTFS (which are probably not totally impossible but as of yet far beyond the scope of computer technology).

Rather, what I want to discuss is the difference between the experience of working on Ext2/Ext3 and the experience of working on NTFS. I could've asked a question like, "How does Windows differ from Linux?" But I want to discuss that at the file-system level; say, not directly in terms of cost. Hope that clears up my clouded expression. :D

well to both you and meeshka i know you are not sitting there trying to throw linux on NTFS or vice versa, i just didn't undrerstand where the question was coming from...and i wasn't trying to tell you that it wasn't possible, i was just trying to explain that since it isn't possible i was using that as my explanation to try and figure out where your question was originating from, that was all....

ntfs,fat,fat32
this site comes from a microsoft site but whatever its still an explanation.
ext2
ext3 vs reiserFS
fourm regarding ext3 <> ntfs
A comparison of ReiserFS, XFS, JFS, ext3 & ext2
results per page above

I'm not sure which is better in terms of performance.

In Ext2/3, files have an owner and an owner-group. There are three sets of permissions for each file, for the owner, owner-group, and anyone else, and the permissions are read, write, and execute. Consult man chmod for more details on this.

The owner is stored as a 16-bit integer (this could be 32, not exactly sure). The ls command and other commands lookup the user name/group name by consulting /etc/passwd when it is needed. Such commands display this number if it can't find the user in /etc/passwd. 0 is always root. You would notice this if you stuck a disk in a current Linux system from another Linux system, for example.


In NTFS, everything is done by Access Control Entries, which are pretty much just a SID and permission flags. AFAIK (a SID being a 32 or 64-bit integer or something like that). Each file has an owner SID, and then can have one or more additional SIDs. The permission flags of that SID determine what the user can do with that file. The chief difference in Linux is that you can only have an owner, a group-owner and that's it. In NTFS you have an owner and then can assign permissions to as many users as you want.

I'm in with the Linux camp in that keeping it simple keeps it actually much more secure, because you can tell at a glance who can access the file and who can't. However, if you need fine grained control (like denying only specific users access) it's a disadvantage and forces applications to implement that functionality.

ext2/3 do the superblock and i-node thing, much like classical UNIX. Not too sure of the details on how it works, but it's very efficient.

NTFS keeps track of files on disk by way of an MFT. The MFT can grow in size according to the number of files on the disk. I think ext2/3 is limited to maximum number of files depending on the size of the superblock, which you can choose at format time. (The MFT can even get fragmented, ironically it's a file as well)

NTFS is journalled, basically meaning the OS writes what it's about to do to the disk to a journal before actually doing it. Then, if it gets interrupted by a power failure, crash, etc. it can make sure the filesystem is consistent and still useable. Ext2 isn't journalled. Ext3 is.

Ext3 also has support for extended attributes. Haven't played with these much.

Hopefully this provides a good base to do more research.

You can. There were at least two windows-specific transparent ext2/ext3 drivers. If you search for them, you'll find them.

But you can't install windows on ext3, only connect another partition and use it.

USB External Drive
 

I bought a new external USB drive and was considering the fs to format the drive. In this context this question is quite relevant. This is an external drive so you can plug it to both windows and linux. I assume windows cannot read ext3 without hassle while linux can read ntfs drives. Well I formatted the drive as ext3 but really don't know if this makes a positive difference in any way. What do you think?

not to change the subject, or to create a Argument.. yes Linux is possible to be installed on a NTFS Partition. With Kernel patching, and Some really funky Init setups...

As far as Windows On a Journaling File system like ext3/riserfs, there is now native windows drivers for both. so its not beyond the scale to perform some wierd copy and boot phase. problem is support...

The real question lay's as to why. Most people would'nt want to try, they are happy with one or the other.

Most linux users never want to see Windows again in there life, for complete use. so why worry about a filesystem they rarely interact with. Speed wise is a good question, i have a NTFS partition, and using ntfs-tools included in ubuntu 8.10 intrepid, the read/write speed seems much lower than my Riserfs filesystem that linux is using...

but in comparison, this could be due to the driver. not the filesystem, so lead beyond that, it still leaves the question as to why... if it be slower in linux, whats the point?

So leads to EXT3 in windows, performance seems about equal, put population time seems slower, and a Slight starting latency. and still buggy.
So for "Testing" i could see, but as a permanent 'Solution' to a question, not at all.

Take youre own side and point of view on that one i suppose.
if youre curious about the driver i speak of or the patch. just ask, as i will have to find it again, but i can produce references...

--

Now, as far as file system performance on linux, which is faster in comparison, EXT3, RiserFS or NTFS, i would like to know. because ive got some really big NTFS partitions id like to switch to EXT3 if it will perform better than a tottal throughput of 2.6MBps, because this is pathetic... 35 minutes to move 4gb of data from Rieserfs to NTFS.

so, if some one knows please tell us.
(and no my problem isnt related to connection. one is attached via SATAII and the other is SAS Array/all are SCSI-6)

To

There is one unix'ey like feature that NTFS has but noone (except malware writers use). A file can have extra streams. This was created to contain the metadata associated with Mac files so that an NT server could be used as a file server for macs. Someone examining the filesystem in a hex editor noticed unaccounted for streams. It was malware but the virus scanners up till then didn't think about scanning the extra streams.

EXT3 vs FAT32
 

I have the same question as ken Ju-on and do have a scenario that uses the ext3 in a windows environment: I have a wireless network storage enclosure (DLink DSM-G600) that has two USB ports. According to DLink tech support DLink, in order to write to the external USB attached drives, the drive has to be formatted in either FAT32, EXT2, or EXT3. I chose EXT3 because I think its a more robust/efficient file system than FAT32. My concern is from a crash recovery point of view, is EXT3 easier to recover than FAT32? I assumed it is but I'm not sure.

Adie

well, with fat32 on crash recovery windows will run chkdsk/scandisk. chkdsk/scandisk has to go through every file and directory in the filesystem to verify it's integrity in that situation. that can take a lot of time. ext2 is in the same boat.

ext3 is journalled, and what the journal does is notate what changes are about to be made to disk. therefore, in the event of interruption, it is not necessary to rescan the entire filesystem but only what's recorded in the journal.

either method does not guarantee that you won't lose data, it's just a way to reduce reboot times if the someone trips over your server's power plug or a tornado hits your datacenter's utility company.

ext2/3 allocate files more efficiently than fat32 and can also store permission information. given those choices you should pick ext2/3 over fat32 as you'll get more space out of your disk. i'd select ext3 to avoid long fsck times on reboot, if your network device does that for external drives.