I've heard a lot of debates either way. I've heard that NTFS has a higher performance because its been re-written to be more efficient with its writes, caching, etc. Its also supposedly better because of its better error-correction (it doesn't need a disk check on boot if you don't properly shut it down, like FAT32.. due to disk logging like ext3/reiserfs). I've heard that FAT32 is better because its simpler disk I/O and doesn't have a lot of the overhead that NTFS does. Plus its more compatible with other OSes because its not proprietary like NTFS is.
Either way, I've not seen a difference between using coLinux on either. (Except, of course, for the disk checking on boot with FAT32.) With proper stats, I can't also say that my experience is definitive, either. I'm sure it would depend a LOT on hardware.
On 1/26/06, Giacomo <kylnas@tiscali.it> wrote:
somebody knows the differences of performances between installing
colinux on a FAT32 partition and installing colinux on NTFS partition?



This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
coLinux-users mailing list