Ext4 vs ntfs windows 7#
Ext4 vs ntfs free#
Ext4 vs ntfs windows#

This isn't a requirement, just something that might be nice. Is it possible to add RAID-1 later on without losing data? I don't have enough money for another hard drive right now (I used that for an external drive RAID doesn't replace backups), but I may add one later.Are there any drawbacks or risks? I heard XFS can corrupt data if there's a power loss.I'm just asking people which filesystem might be most suited for this use case. I'm not asking 'What is the best filesystem?'-There is no such thing as 'the best.'

Ext4 vs ntfs free#

My leading candidates are Ext3/4, XFS, Btrfs, and ZFS (feel free to argue for another). Which filesystem do you think is best suited for this use case? Since it's mostly for large media files and backups, it won't be written to very often. I have a 4TB HDD I want to add as storage. Both represent real world scenarios.My use case: I have Ubuntu Server 18.04 installed on an M.2 SSD. You should benchmark both with and without caching enabled to test how well the filesystem works when reading in an uncached file and when reading a cached file. Powers of 1024 would be a good start, three makes a curve. Generally, file size ranges should go from the block size all the way up to 4 gigs (simulating a video file). Put them in a big matrix and run all combinations. Benchmarks are supposed to reflect real world usage, and in the real world you read and write files of different sizes and different caching states. Putting that aside, because this is homework, you ask about what scenarios to run. It's possible you could conduct extra tests to eliminate the compiler and operating system variables, but I don't know what they are. This would have no bearing on Windows's NTFS implementation. Redhat does have an NTFS implementation, so you could eliminate the variables by benchmarking everything on Redhat, but then you'll be benchmarking Redhat's NTFS implementation vs Redhat's ext4 implementation. You might want to point out this flaw in the homework for extra points, or it might just annoy the TA. No general statements about the filesystems can be drawn from this only about the combinations.

Ext4 vs ntfs windows#

What you're benchmarking Redhat + their C compiler + ext4 vs Windows + their compiler + NTFS.

C compiler (gcc/clang vs Visual C++ (I'm guessing)).

Assuming you'll use the same hardware, your variables are. I also plan to compare metadata operations but I'm working on those and will probably post a question later if needed.ДЄs benchmarks of filesystems, they will be invalid. My main concern is with respect to the sizes of the files I run my tests on and the size to use for each operation (read/write).ДЄny other pointers with respect to what I could include in my experiments and any other changes required to my approach would be greatly appreciated. Again, same questions as above.Д¬omparing write speeds: Disable write caching on both and write in sizes of a block.

Should I do this on files of different sizes or on the same file? Also, does it make sense to read in multiples of the block size? Of course, for reads beyond the first caching would come into play.Д¬omparing random-read speeds: Run reads (again of the block size) at different file offsets. Here are the details with the questions in bold:Д¬omparing sequential-read speeds: I plan to have a few files of different sizes and performing sequential reads on these with size of each read being a block (4K on both file systems). I am trying to come up with experiments for the benchmarks but am very confused about what should be done and if what I'm thinking makes any sense (my prof is out for 2 weeks and the class has no TA).

Ext4 vs ntfs windows 7#

I am doing benchmarking using C of ext4 and NTFS (on RHEL and Windows 7 respectively) as part of a class project.