Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 143

Thread: Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default Dubios in Enterprise

    Sure, this thing is fast. But is it safe? Probably not.

    Either something is slow and safe (lots of checksums and other safety calculations) or it is fast and unsafe (bypass all checks, no time is spent in doing checks). I dont see Enterprise use something that is unsafe. What happens if you cut the power, will the entire filesystem be corrupted then? No, I would not trust my data on such a filesystem. And you also consider that already the normal NTFS is unsafe and might corrupt your data:
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ho...ta-at-risk/169
    And in this driver, they have bypassed even more safety than in normal NTFS? How unsafe is it?


    Most probably, the developer can also modify ext4 according to same principles, and make ext4 faster (but unsafe). But, I would not use an unsafe version of ext4. I prefer slow and safe, rather than fast and maybe corrupted data. I would think: is my data silently corrupted now? How can I know that my data is still intact? There is no way of knowing that! (see the link above). In the link, there is a PhD thesis talking about silently corrupted data.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    1. No one needs NTFS driver - people usually use it to access stuff on microsht or repair it. With linux box. No need for 10x access.
    2. NTFS permission system is a cumbersome joke! Linux 888 is so simplistic and efficient!
    3. Consider the efficiency - with ext4 I have never ever had to reinstall - the filesystem ALWAYS recovered safely. In ntfs and windows xp times I have been reinstalling it on monthly basis.
    4. NTFS has badblocks... lols!
    5. Tuxera is closed source software. NTFS is proprietary.
    6. No data about precaching (how many MBs does tuxera waste for write-ahead cache?)

    EXT4 is tried and true system, opensource and tested. Vs wild claims of proprietary developer about unused cases on offtopic system.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Posts
    323

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    1. No one needs NTFS driver - people usually use it to access stuff on microsht or repair it. With linux box. No need for 10x access.
    2. NTFS permission system is a cumbersome joke! Linux 888 is so simplistic and efficient!
    3. Consider the efficiency - with ext4 I have never ever had to reinstall - the filesystem ALWAYS recovered safely. In ntfs and windows xp times I have been reinstalling it on monthly basis.
    4. NTFS has badblocks... lols!
    5. Tuxera is closed source software. NTFS is proprietary.
    6. No data about precaching (how many MBs does tuxera waste for write-ahead cache?)

    EXT4 is tried and true system, opensource and tested. Vs wild claims of proprietary developer about unused cases on offtopic system.
    1. You just provided your use case while denying it exists. Fancy.
    2. You're incredibly wrong. My god, I just have no words.
    3. Reinstalling is unrelated to a filesystem maintaining its integrity. (As you didn't bother to mention a filesystem problem or the actions you attempted to repair it, I'm assuming that none existed and you simply lack education in the basic tenets of logic.)
    4. In which you make it obvious that you're a snot-nosed brat with no idea what he's talking about.

    Epilogue: You realise NTFS has been around for more than a decade, right? 5 and 6 are surprisingly correct (if lifted directly from other posts in this thread), but crapping on NTFS in your ignorance is rather uncouth. Though I find the use of Windows in any application hilarious at best (embedded is great-- love the BSOD vending machines; comedy gold), you cannot deny that NTFS has been widely deployed in almost every sort of environment imaginable (inside our atmosphere). That it's still capable of functioning at anything approaching a modern level (even bearing in mind the various versions) is nothing short of impressive.

    Your disdain almost certainly comes unfounded from the position of one who is not a programmer and knows nothing of the craft. You should stop making words now.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    106

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    Sure, this thing is fast. But is it safe? Probably not.
    .... the normal NTFS is unsafe and might corrupt your data:...
    i had some big troubles with ntfs drives when i used the 512 byte sector hard-drive , i have jumped to 4096 byte sector hard-drive mostly because that is the size wiwi like to use for formatting . then i do not regret it at all .
    [i have 6 2To drive of them , that are not very fast and 2 ssd 64Go for wiwi and fedora]

    i use Auslogics Disk Defrag and Defraggler , that are both very good for defrags

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    That's why all this talk about its security is a bullshit.
    Are you sure about that? http://www.symantec.com/security_res...032400-0103-99

    Linux.Psybot is a worm that spreads between embedded devices running Linux MIPS, such as routers and DSL modems.

    No interaction with the user needed. Awesome security, that.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Windows and Linux security is on par with each other, and pretending otherwise by burying our heads in the sand just means that it won't ever get any better.
    Not really, when the most popular web hosting OS goes 3 months without a security update, any positive comparison between the two gets shot in the ass.

    Linux security is only on par with Microsoft's when someone is being paid to provide security patches for the OS, otherwise it is a rather unfunny joke that ends up with your sites being used to host lolcats.

  7. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Are you sure about that? http://www.symantec.com/security_res...032400-0103-99

    Linux.Psybot is a worm that spreads between embedded devices running Linux MIPS, such as routers and DSL modems.

    No interaction with the user needed. Awesome security, that.
    Haha, awesome joke!

    Once executed, the worm attempts to obtain a shell in the remote computer using the following methods:

    • Bruteforcing user name and passwords of administration interfaces
    • Using an exploit for other vulnerable daemon

  8. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Linux security is only on par with Microsoft's when someone is being paid to provide security patches for the OS, otherwise it is a rather unfunny joke that ends up with your sites being used to host lolcats.
    No, it's on pair with Microsoft when you open all ports, run all services and every installed applications as well. If nothing happens then you have to find some trojan horse and run it.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Are you sure about that? http://www.symantec.com/security_res...032400-0103-99

    Linux.Psybot is a worm that spreads between embedded devices running Linux MIPS, such as routers and DSL modems.

    No interaction with the user needed. Awesome security, that.
    Is this supposed to be proof of something? Bruteforcing of weak password against a router running (which must have enabled external administration). Weak password on a connected system allowing remote login, no security can save you there.

    Full threat assessment from Symantec on Linux.Psy

    Wild Level: Low
    Number of Infections: 0 - 49
    Number of Sites: 0 - 2
    Geographical Distribution: Low
    Threat Containment: Easy
    Removal: Easy

    If this was the best you could dig up then I'd say you made Linux look very secure. Or am I missing something?

  10. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    If this was the best you could dig up then I'd say you made Linux look very secure. Or am I missing something?
    You have probably missed this:

    Not really, when the most popular web hosting OS goes 3 months without a security update, any positive comparison between the two gets shot in the ass.
    To proof Linux' security its updates have to be delayed for about 3 months (I'd give one more week as a bonus, so we can boast we're better than Windows, because we holded the place longer).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •