Re: [coLinux-users] Differences of colinux performances between FAT32 and NTFS

[Ian B. <ib...@gm...>]

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 properl=
y
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 OSe=
s
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.

Ian

On 1/26/06, Giacomo <ky...@ti...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> somebody knows the differences of performances between installing
> colinux on a FAT32 partition and installing colinux on NTFS partition?
>
> thanks
>
> --
> Giacomo
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 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!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D103432&bid=3D230486&dat=
=3D121642
> _______________________________________________
> coLinux-users mailing list
> coL...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/colinux-users
>