• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Is NTFS better than the Linux file systems?



I posted this question in an Australian forum. The moderator got so offended that my "thread" was stopped.

When I googled the research, etc, ... I got the message that Linux is trying to get up to speed with NTFS. Current Linux file systems are designed for multi-server reliability, not for small biz or home users, who might also want other features: compression, long-complex-filenames, small-clusters, password-security, etc.

Does anyone know? Or are the Linux fanatics going to close this thread done - again?

Perris Calderon

Staff member
Political User
nobody's going to close this thread

I don't know much about linux, and especially about their file system.

however, the nt files system stores so much information in the master file table, I sort of doubt linux is up to speed on this.

for instance, the kernal will actually recognize bad sectors on your hardrive AS YOU WORK, AND REMAPP THEM...this makes it so that a chk disc is almost never neccessary.

this also gives your work plenty of integrity, incase there is a crash while you are working, you will hardly ever lose your work

there is a small sacrifice in performance, but given that defrag is not as critical, this will translate into a boost in performance for most users.

as I said, I can't speak on behalf of the linux file system, so I'd love to see someone with that kind of experience come in here and compare the two
This is according to my (somewhat limited) knowledge about NTFS and Linux file systems.

There is more than one Linux file system. NTFS is better than ext2, but probably not better than ext3 for instance. There are also several others like, for instance, Reiser FS.
NTFS and ext3 are journalizing, which means they always keep track of all reads and writes made. This makes the system much more safe in case of a crash. Hence no need for chkdsk/scandisk/fschk. ext2 is (like FAT) not journalizing.
Most of the information of the NTFS internals is secret and not released by MS. That's why it's quite hard to compare it to open source file systems. Most of the Linux file systems are modern, effective file system, so is NTFS. Closer than that is hard to get afaik. :(

Hope it helps some! :)


Political User
Once again, i reiterate what someone allready has said there are a lot of different filesystems.

For instance, FreeBSD uses UFS ( Unix file system ) with softupdates ( Adds Asynchronous reading and writing support )

In Linux i would use reiserFS or EXT3, reason, they are both really stable file system.

I myself have noticed that Linux and FreeBSD or rather *Nix keep their partitions as close to defragmentated as possible at runtime. With NTFS its different, i seem to do a lot of defragmentation runs since my system gets slow. I have yet to see such an issue with *Nix.

For the rest, the compression in the filesystem is useless, all it does is zip your HD up and open the zip, get a file and use it, so basically its slowing it down more than speeding it up. Small cluster size, i dont know much about cluster sizes in *Nix, neither much in Windows, all i know the smaller the better. I dont really care about this. It is your own opinion.

lots of small business uses Linux servers, why? Cause they are stable, clean and dont need a whole lot of maintiainence with the tools we have these days to update the system. Plus they dont need to be rebooted every so often.

For home users there is really not much new yet, Linux is and will stay a system for Web Serving, but its catching up. The latest window managers and KDE are trying to simplify all the things you can do with Linux.

I believe in the following:

Each filesystem or system was created for a specific use, comparing them is a hard thing to do, and could be biased if one prefers one over the other.

If I remember correctly UFS (and probably ext2/3) has/have cluster sharing. This means more than one file can occupy a cluster. This way the cluster size becomes less of a problem.


I may actually be insane.
I've always used XFS and FFS (I think I used ext3 briefly too) I know that XFS is a journalistic system, is FFS though?


Political User
Originally posted by Zedric
If I remember correctly UFS (and probably ext2/3) has/have cluster sharing. This means more than one file can occupy a cluster. This way the cluster size becomes less of a problem.
Looked into this, UFS and EXT 3 have cluster sharing, EXT 2 does nt.

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Latest member