ntfsprogs vs. fusefs-ntfs (ntfs-3g) reliability?
Jan Henrik Sylvester
me at janh.de
Wed Aug 13 09:06:09 UTC 2008
Is there a particular reason our ntfsprogs port did not get updated for
a year but now it has?
So far I did use ntfs-3g for mounting and ntfsprogs for resizing etc.
with very few problems. Once on copying many files, two of them were
only partially written with error messages "Bad address" and "No such
file or directory". On the second attempt, I was able to copy them.
(Moreover, using qemu volumes residing on ntfs-3g does not work, but I
guess that is more of a fuse issue than an ntfs-3g one.)
Today, our ntfsprogs port got updated to 2.0.0. On ntfs-3g.org, it is
stated that "[they] warn against the usage of ntfsprogs-2.0.0 because of
major reliability issues (write failure, sparse file corruption, utility
hang, etc). Use an earlier version instead until they get fixed."
Some google search shows that former ntfsprogs developer(s) are now
working on ntfs-3g and the authors of both projects have some
All I can tell is that ntfsprogs really has not been updated for a year
and ntfs-3g seems to be actively developed.
Either the ntfs-3g developer is correct and using ntfsprogs 2.0.0 is
dangerous, or he is incorrect, which would make using ntfs-3g a little
Do you have any information from a third party? Do you think that both
FreeBSD ports ntfs-3g and ntfsprogs 2.0.0 are reliable?
More information about the freebsd-ports