|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
>> Format as ext3 - 10:10 (That's 10 minutes ten seconds)
>> Fsck as ext3 - 11:30 (No files)
>
>> Format as NTFS (quick) - 00:14
>> chkdsk (no files) - 00:06
>
> It seems that you are trying to make some kind of point or statement.
A couple weeks ago, Andrew pointed out that his ext2 format took a few
seconds and his NTFS format took 20 minutes. I measured it on a 40G
partition and found they each took less than 15 seconds if you didn't do
the scan, but I remembered it taking much longer at work.
So when I got a work-sized drive at home that wasn't full of stuff I
wanted to keep, I tried it again.
> However, that would be quite moot, unless you have to format disks on
> a daily basis, which is quite rare.
Yep, pretty much. I'm not trying to bash anything. I didn't even try the
other Linux file systems.
> (Btw, are you absolutely sure fsck is not performing a surface scan?)
Yes. A surface scan would take about 15 hours on this drive. (I'm
filling it with random data right now, as I don't really trust to
backups a drive I've never actually written to.) It's going about one
gig per 50 seconds.
I'll also note that at work, an fsck on a file system with a lot of
files (like, a couple million files) takes maybe 20 to 40 minutes on an
IDE drive, as opposed to just a couple on NTFS. Clearly different
trade-offs were made in the design of the file systems.
I'd like to find a file system I can reliably use from OSX, Windows, and
Linux, myself. OSX can almost handle NTFS (as in, it seems to be able to
read/write NTFS as long as you don't hit the parts that aren't
supportable with the UNIX file system semantics), but as far as I can
tell, NTFS still isn't safely writable from Linux? That's what google is
telling me, at least.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |