![]() Both implementations are equally good from a technical perspective. Which version of Paragon’s NTFS shall I use – an open source NTFS implementation committed by Paragon into a Linux Kernel or Paragon’s proprietary code? I am an OEM and need to have NTFS read/write support in my product running Linux. Once our code is accepted, we believe the current NTFS implementations will quickly become obsolete. Both of the current NTFS implementations appear to be well-done artifacts of the past. Yes, we are sure the community will appreciate the stability, performance, and excellent kernel architecture of our industrial-grade code, which has been available only for “big shots” with “deep pockets” up until now. For example, full journaling support over JBD will be added in future updates.ĭo you intend to replace the existing code in the Linux kernel (with two drivers for NTFS) with your own code? You may be interested in our Paragon APFS SDK.ĭo you plan to further support / modify NTFS3 or completely transfer its maintenance to the community?Īfter our patch is accepted into the kernel, we are planning to maintain it, add new features, and fix bugs. You’ll find some of our published products there already. Yes, we plan to publish the next releases on our GitHub: ![]() ![]() We believe both we and the community will benefit from this contribution in the long term.Īre you planning to publish the NTFS3 code on GitHub? Microsoft NTFS for Linux by Paragon Software, in addition to some features (ugm, fifo, socket, char dev, etc.), also includes support (regarding any performance issues) and utilities (chkNTFS and mkNTFS). NTFS3 has a GPL-2.0 license, while Microsoft NTFS for Linux by Paragon Software has a proprietary license. Is there a difference between NTFS3 and “Microsoft NTFS for Linux by Paragon Software”?Īs already stated previously (FAQ3), NTFS3 is a standalone NTFS implementation written from scratch in 4 months. Microsoft made the decision to allow the use of exFAT in the Linux kernel, and thus, we felt encouraged to give Linux what it has been waiting for over the past 20 years*: quality NTFS support at the kernel level. We share the principles of the Linux Open Source Community and support its ongoing development. One of these reasons is to leverage C-language in Linux kernel components, but we also believe that both we and the community will benefit from this contribution in the long term. Why did you decide to open-source implementation of NTFS?įirst, we must emphasize that we decided to develop a Linux kernel implementation from scratch for a number of reasons. We may also open-source rapidcopyfile and backup utilities for NTFS once mkfs has been published. Yes, we plan to publish and open-source our mkfs.NTFS utility. On the contrary, NTFS3 is a kernel driver, which offers much faster performance than FUSE based implementations.Īre you planning to add any decent filesystem utilities? The existing alternatives such as fsck.NTFS/NTFSck and fsck.(v)fat don’t work well, and the community has been waiting for a fix. The main drawback of this implementation is speed. NTFS-3G is a filesystem in userspace (FUSE). What’s the difference between NTFS-3G and NTFS3? For example, full journaling support over JBD will be added in future updates. After our patch is accepted into the kernel, we plan to support this version, add new features, and fix bugs. Paragon’s implementation offers full read-write support (including NTFS compressed/sparse files) and journal replaying over the original one. Why is your driver better than the Original NTFS implementation dated back by 2001? The following table provides a detailed comparison of all 4 NTFS implementations referenced here. How do different NTFS implementations for Linux, referenced in this FAQ, compare to each other?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |