![]() ![]() You shouldn't expect NTFS-3G to completely match or surpass the performance of a well optimized kernel driver like OS X's HFS+ driver though, but we should at least be able to achieve a 1:0.9 or 1:0.95 performance ratio to HFS+ in the future.Īs to what blocksize NTFS-3G uses, that depends. Your performance numbers are roughly what one could expect from the current NTFS-3G build, but we're working on redoing the I/O layer for the next version (hopefully).Īt that point, NTFS-3G should be able to better match Apple's HFS+ driver in performance. As for myself, I'm permanently running with caching turned on for all my drives. This flexibility has rendered the so called 'stable' build obsolete. for instance you may see data integrity for your internal drive in the event of a system crash as high priority, while you may be more interested in high performance when communicating with external USB drives. You can also turn off caching for individual drives. However, under normal operation (no system crashes, no power cuts, no accidentially disconnected cables prior to unmounting the volume.) your data is equally safe in cached mode as it is in uncached mode. You will achieve the same amount of data safety as the old 'stable' build, at the cost of lower performance numbers. This is useful if you're worried about losing data in the event of a system crash. The caching layer isn't at all experimental, but if you're concerned about data integrity you can turn off caching through the preference pane in the new 'unified' build. ![]() The 'stable' build was in the end built from the same code base as the 'ublio' build, but with a few features turned off at compile time. 'ublio' was unfortunate, and didn't at all reflect the actual maturity of the code.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |