From: Szabolcs S. <sz...@nt...> - 2007-10-23 20:37:12
|
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Jorgen Lundman wrote: > Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > That's to do with umount on shutdown: if the ntfs-3g process is killed > > by the shutdown scripts before it can flush all data to disk, there > > can be some data loss. But otherwise this doesn't affect the > > operation > > What would be the "safe" way to umount? "fusermount -u /tmp/test" ? Wait after umount returns till the ntfs-3g process naturally terminates (or you could port the 2.6 kernel stuff back to 2.4). > It was a long road, but I got there eventually. ntfs-3g needed a lot of > work, as they use newer gcc which lets you define unnamed structs and > unions. You have gcc 2.95 or older. gcc supports unnamed structs/unions since over six years, except one broken release (3.0.2, afair). There was indeed some complains between 2001 and 2003 but this is the first one I have seen since then. Btw, if somebody is interested, recently I updated the benchmark numbers using 10 filesystems with a twice as fast disk: http://ntfs-3g.org/performance.html Not so bad results from an unoptimized fuse file system (no kernel, fuse, ntfs-3g optimization yet). One of the main reasons to have the poorest sequential write performance is the kernel splitting up bigger write buffers to 4 kB chunks. Caching inodes in user space could compensate this enough to make ext3 the slowest write performer. Szaka |