Back to Website

BTrFS vs NTFS boot from

All development related issues welcome

Moderator: Moderator Team

BTrFS vs NTFS boot from

Postby A_S » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:53 pm

Some days ago a new feature request was created. I am not totally agree with it and want to discuss what is better NTFS or BTrFS.
I see some advantages of NTFS:
  1. Not fist release. Well known features tested by million people.
  2. A lot of exiting tools for work with it. No bicycles. Possible some code base can be imported.
  3. Developers have full control on code base (and knowledge too). No wait for bug fixing by Oracle and free for new features needed.
  4. For windows NTFS is native. Some applications will be happy (e.g p2p clients can use streams to store hashes)
  5. No some strange features, that can boil head, but actually will never be used by general user (software RAIDSs, mixing use SSD and HDD, load balancing)
A_S
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:38 pm

Re: BTrFS vs NTFS boot from

Postby Fraizeraust » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:20 pm

It is obvious NTFS is the top critical priority over all file systems out there (except for FAT32) since it comes by default on all Windows products. BTRFS can shall wait for a bit until the rest of the development is done and buggy-free.
Fraizeraust
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:46 am
Location: Italy

Re: BTrFS vs NTFS boot from

Postby EmuandCo » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:42 pm

You know that the main reason for Pierre Schweitzer to add a big amount of IFS drivers is mainly bugfixing? I hope so... Check recent commits of him and you know what he is doing. All these commits are needed for NTFS sooner or later too
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.
EmuandCo
Developer
 
Posts: 3871
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld

Re: BTrFS vs NTFS boot from

Postby erkinalp » Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:01 pm

btrfs has its own goodies:
*subvolume management(even across disks with unequal sizes)
*copy-on-write filesystem making backups easier
*it makes easier to coexist with Linux in the same volume
-uses Ubuntu+GNOME 3 GNU/Linux
-likes Free (as in freedom) and Open Source Detergents
erkinalp
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: BTrFS vs NTFS boot from

Postby Jedi-to-be » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:10 pm

Fraizeraust wrote:It is obvious NTFS is the top critical priority over all file systems out there (except for FAT32) since it comes by default on all Windows products. BTRFS can shall wait for a bit until the rest of the development is done and buggy-free.


NTFS will be developed only if we have developer assigned to it. But we do not have one, until CoderTrevor decides to continue his work. At the moment I see him on hiatus.

In case of BTRFS we have a developer who is assigned to it, and thus it will make progress. And BTEFS driver is already in mature and in feature complete state.
Jedi-to-be
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Russia, Stavropol

Re: BTrFS vs NTFS boot from

Postby ROCKNROLLKID » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:40 am

Jedi-to-be wrote:
Fraizeraust wrote:It is obvious NTFS is the top critical priority over all file systems out there (except for FAT32) since it comes by default on all Windows products. BTRFS can shall wait for a bit until the rest of the development is done and buggy-free.


NTFS will be developed only if we have developer assigned to it. But we do not have one, until CoderTrevor decides to continue his work. At the moment I see him on hiatus.

In case of BTRFS we have a developer who is assigned to it, and thus it will make progress. And BTEFS driver is already in mature and in feature complete state.


Winbtrfs* There is a difference between btrfs and Winbtrfs. btrfs has been stable for a long time now, but only recently winbtrfs was made stable, with 1.0 released September 4th 2017. btrfs was also made by a variety of people and organizations (facebook, oracle, intel, and of course red hat and Linux foundation) where as winbtrfs is only being made by one person.

Anyways, it was reported that btrfs is slightly faster then ntfs. btrfs also has higher limitations then ntfs. ntfs = volume 256tb, file size 16eb and around 4 million max files vs btrfs = 16EB for both volume and file size and around 18 quintillion max files. btrfs is also more evolve in general as the last updates to ntfs were in 2001 when XP was released vs btrfs still being updated to this day.

However, MS will probably eventually replace ntfs with ReFS, as that has become the standard for the server edition of windows now. I don't know much about ReFS other then it has no limits to max files and the volume and max file size are pretty much tripled compared to btrfs.
ROCKNROLLKID
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:19 am


Re: BTrFS vs NTFS boot from

Postby Jedi-to-be » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:08 am

ROCKNROLLKID wrote: winbtrfs is only being made by one person.



And we should not forget that feature complete NTFS driver in ReactOS still does not exist. And will not exist in next 2 years approx.
While WinBTRFS is almost ready.
Jedi-to-be
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Russia, Stavropol

Re: BTrFS vs NTFS boot from

Postby ROCKNROLLKID » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:23 am

Jedi-to-be wrote:
ROCKNROLLKID wrote: winbtrfs is only being made by one person.



And we should not forget that feature complete NTFS driver in ReactOS still does not exist. And will not exist in next 2 years approx.
While WinBTRFS is almost ready.


Trevor mentioned he was most likely going to stay with ReactOS after GSOC was officially over, so let's see what comes of that.

In the meantime, has anyone tested Winbtrfs on Windows before (not ReactOS). I am curious if it breaks compatibility at all with games/software/drivers/ect?
ROCKNROLLKID
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:19 am

Re: BTrFS vs NTFS boot from

Postby Jedi-to-be » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:31 am

ROCKNROLLKID wrote:
Trevor mentioned he was most likely going to stay with ReactOS after GSOC was officially over, so let's see what comes of that.


If I remember correctly the same thing he said a year ago. Intentions are good, but good intentions are not the code yet.
Jedi-to-be
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Russia, Stavropol

Re: BTrFS vs NTFS boot from

Postby Konata » Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:33 am

Jedi-to-be wrote:And we should not forget that feature complete NTFS driver in ReactOS still does not exist. And will not exist in next 2 years approx.
While WinBTRFS is almost ready.


And? ReactOS itself is still far from production ready. What does it matter if the NTFS driver takes the same amount of time ReactOS would take to become more stable? It's not as if switching from FAT right now would mean anything when so many other parts of the kernel have severe stability issues at the moment.
Konata
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: BTrFS vs NTFS boot from

Postby erkinalp » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:34 am

dizt3mp3r wrote:Only 18 quintillion max files?

In one subvolume. btrfs allows you to have multiple subvolumes in the same partition. You can fiddle with mount options to get them in your desired path.
-uses Ubuntu+GNOME 3 GNU/Linux
-likes Free (as in freedom) and Open Source Detergents
erkinalp
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: BTrFS vs NTFS boot from

Postby EmuandCo » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:30 am

You have all the positive aspects of ZFS, like included Software RAIDs etc. The FS is a nice thing. But NTFS will follow sooner or later.
And if our devs skilled in that direction have no spare time to do that, then we have to wait. I already explained that to you @jedi-to-be and a accusation/attack against Trevor is not what I wanna see here!
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.
EmuandCo
Developer
 
Posts: 3871
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld


Return to Development Help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests