This site is now 100% read-only, and retired.

Writing to Windows XP, NTFS-FUSE or Captive-FUSE, which is best?

Posted by DebianIsCool on Tue 7 Mar 2006 at 09:48

I thought I would run a few tests to check the differences between the two ways of writing to NTFS partitions: Captive-FUSE and NTFS-FUSE.

The first test was to copy the 700 MB file SUSE-10.0-CD-i386-GM-CD3.iso

The test machine is rather old (a 750 MHz Duron chip with 512 MB RAM). For comparison purposes, it took 11:36 minutes to copy the file from a USB memory stick (VFAT) to a Reiser partition.

Results for NTFS-FUSE.

# date; cp /SUSE-10.0-CD-i386-GM-CD3.iso /c; date
Sun Mar  5 01:37:18 UTC 2006
Sun Mar  5 01:53:42 UTC 2006

NTFS-FUSE took 16:24 minutes to copy the 700 MB file from a Reiser partition to an NTFS partition.

# date; cp /c/SUSE-10.0-CD-i386-GM-CD3.iso /c/SUSE-Copy.iso; date
Sun Mar  5 01:54:59 UTC 2006
Sun Mar  5 01:58:59 UTC 2006

NTFS-FUSE took 4 minutes to copy the 700 MB file within the same NTFS partition.

# date; cp /c/SUSE-10.0-CD-i386-GM-CD3.iso /d; date
Sun Mar  5 02:17:23 UTC 2006
Sun Mar  5 02:23:11 UTC 2006

NTFS-FUSE took 5:48 minutes to copy the 700 MB file from one NTFS partition to another NTFS partition.

# date; cp /c/SUSE-10.0-CD-i386-GM-CD3.iso /; date
Sun Mar  5 04:25:23 UTC 2006
Sun Mar  5 04:27:59 UTC 2006

NTFS-FUSE took 2:36 minutes to copy the 700 MB file from an NTFS partition to a Reiser partition.

Results for Captive-FUSE.

# date; cp /SUSE-10.0-CD-i386-GM-CD3.iso /C; date
Sun Mar  5 04:44:28 UTC 2006
Sun Mar  5 06:53:34 UTC 2006

Captive-FUSE took 132:06 minutes to copy the 700 MB file from a Reiser partition to an NTFS partition.

# date; cp /C/SUSE-10.0-CD-i386-GM-CD3.iso /C/SUSE-Copy.iso; date
Mon Mar  6 00:04:03 UTC 2006
cp: reading `/C/SUSE-10.0-CD-i386-GM-CD3.iso': Invalid argument
Mon Mar  6 01:36:41 UTC 2006

FAILED: Captive-FUSE was never able to copy the 700 MB file within the same NTFS partition (3 tries, same error).

# date; cp /C/SUSE-10.0-CD-i386-GM-CD3.iso /D; date
Sun Mar  5 22:23:41 UTC 2006
Mon Mar  6 00:01:15 UTC 2006

Captive-FUSE took 97:34 minutes to miss-copy the 700 MB file from one NTFS partition to another NTFS partition. (FAILED: Wrong MD5.)

# date; cp /C/SUSE-10.0-CD-i386-GM-CD3.iso /; date
Sun Mar  5 22:15:06 UTC 2006
Sun Mar  5 22:22:17 UTC 2006

Captive-FUSE took 7:11 minutes to copy the 700 MB file from an NTFS partition to a Reiser partition.

Conclusion: NTFS-FUSE easily wins the first round.

Writing to Windows XP/2000/NT (NTFS formatted) from SuSE Linux using NTFS-FUSE.

Writing to Windows XP/2000/NT (NTFS formatted) from SuSE Linux using Captive-FUSE (Updated).

 

 


Re: Writing to Windows XP, NTFS-FUSE or Captive-FUSE, which is best?
Posted by Anonymous (84.159.xx.xx) on Tue 7 Mar 2006 at 10:53
Just a quick tip for you:

instead of: date ; $command ; date
try: time $command

(for further info about time: man time)

[ Parent ]

Re: Writing to Windows XP, NTFS-FUSE or Captive-FUSE, which is best?
Posted by Anonymous (210.242.xx.xx) on Wed 8 Mar 2006 at 01:59
Thanks for the tip. I had never even heard of the time program. I've been using Linux for years, but are continuously finding new, useful things that I had no idea were hiding on my computer.

For example, I used Linux for a couple of years before realizing you can edit the command line with Emacs commands. This extremely useful feature was just never mentioned by anyone,... I guess, because everyone else already knew about it, and didn't think it worthy of comment.

I have found out that the reason NTFS falls over, when coping a large number of files, is that it can only write 13 (if I remember correctly) files into any one directory.

This is a very strange restriction and deserves a peek into the source code to find out what causes it. Maybe I will email one of the developers if I have time.

Why not run more extensive tests? Because neither Captive-FUSE nor NTFS-FUSE are really up to it.

All the partitions were on the same hard-drive. It is a 20 GB Western Digital:

Model=WDC WD200EB-11CPF0

# hdparm /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
multcount = 16 (on)
IO_support = 1 (32-bit)
unmaskirq = 1 (on)
using_dma = 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 256 (on)
geometry = 38792/16/63, sectors = 39102336, start = 0

[ Parent ]

Re: Writing to Windows XP, NTFS-FUSE or Captive-FUSE, which is best?
Posted by Anonymous (86.133.xx.xx) on Tue 7 Mar 2006 at 12:46
how did this affect the corruption factor or did you not check for this as you were only looking for the fastest transfer?

[ Parent ]

he did an MD5 checksum on the result
Posted by Anonymous (68.165.xx.xx) on Tue 7 Mar 2006 at 20:09
It failed w/ Captive-FUSE, so there's no point in even comparing it.
If copying a file corrupts your file, I wouldn't touch it w/ a ten foot pole. And if it fails something as basic as this, there's no point in running a performance test like iozone...

[ Parent ]

Re: Writing to Windows XP, NTFS-FUSE or Captive-FUSE, which is best?
Posted by Anonymous (200.40.xx.xx) on Tue 7 Mar 2006 at 16:44
Instead of copy one file why no try a filesystem benchmark like IOZone or Bonnie++?
Are your partitions on the same disk? What kind of disk are you using?


PD:
iozone: http://www.iozone.org/
bonnie++: http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/

[ Parent ]

How to install on Debian?
Posted by Anonymous (193.2.xx.xx) on Wed 8 Mar 2006 at 09:54
Is there anywhere a nice set of note with instructions on how to install Captive and friedns on Debian box?

Gregor

[ Parent ]

Re: How to install on Debian?
Posted by Anonymous (210.242.xx.xx) on Thu 9 Mar 2006 at 04:14
Maybe you could get Steve Kemp to write one.

[ Parent ]

Re: How to install on Debian?
Posted by Anonymous (89.53.xx.xx) on Fri 10 Mar 2006 at 15:48
Steve Kemp is surely as busy as everyone else - so why should you bother him with things, that you can do on your own?

[ Parent ]