NTFS in GENERIC: opt-in or opt-out?
rwatson at FreeBSD.org
Mon Jan 19 08:33:58 PST 2009
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:25:14PM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>> I am reviewing differences between amd64 and i386 GENERIC kernels and
>> noticed that for some unclear reason we ship amd64 GENERIC with NTFS module
>> compiled in, while i386 without it. IMHO both should match. The question is
>> whether NTFS should be i386 way (opt in) or amd64 way (opt out) in GENERIC?
>> What do people think?
> given that the sysutils/fusefs-ntfs seems to be much better, I'd rather
> remove the in-kernel ntfs from both and replace with a note on what to do to
> use fusefs-ntfs
There was a long thread on this topic on arch@, maybe 6 months ago, in which
it was concluded that:
(1) fusefs is fairly (quite) unstable if used intensively
(2) our kernel ntfs code is much faster for read-only operation
I doubt either of these has changed significantly in that time, but I'm
willing to be surprised. I watched my office-mate here at the CL suffer
through the fuse/ntfs support on FreeBSD 7.x for several weeks before giving
up and using UFS on his larger USB-attached storage. He saw a range of panics
in that time, all in fuse.
Robert N M Watson
University of Cambridge
More information about the freebsd-current