Tilt090 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 hi guys i was having problems with windows 7 latest build HD playback recently. So i decided to install ubuntu 9.04 and installed it with ext4 filesystem. i moved around 5 gb of data from one ntfs partition to another and it took 5 min 21 seconds then i moved the same mixed data of 5 gb from ext4 formatted partition to another ext4 partition and it took 2 min 14 seconds. i rubbed my eyes and tried it again. and yet again same results. just wow! it was so fast and so smooth! infact now i could playback around 5 HD 1080p movies simultaneously compared to 2 on win7 and 3 on xp. ubuntu beta took just a bit of customising like a new theme and segoe fonts to polish ubuntu. with such mind blowing performance of the ext4 im not sure if windows will be able to keep up. i've put win7 and winxp in virtualbox on ubuntu 9.04 for backup. whats your take on this? looking forward to your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouldy Punk Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Have Microsoft updated NTFS recently, or is it the same ol' NTFS that's been shipped with Windows as far back as NT? If it hasn't been revised in a while, that could explain why a brand spanking new file system is noticeably faster than it :p Just a question regarding how you copied the data, were the partitions on separate physical drives? IIRC, copying from 1 drive to another is slower than copying between 2 partitions on the same drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted April 13, 2009 Veteran Share Posted April 13, 2009 Yes, Microsoft keeps updating NTFS. The NTFS that shipped with NT4.0 is different than XP, which is different than 7. It would be interesting to see more testing than just the file copy. Nice start, but there are a lot of other things to test, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 hi guysi was having problems with windows 7 latest build HD playback recently. So i decided to install ubuntu 9.04 and installed it with ext4 filesystem. i moved around 5 gb of data from one ntfs partition to another and it took 5 min 21 seconds then i moved the same mixed data of 5 gb from ext4 formatted partition to another ext4 partition and it took 2 min 14 seconds. i rubbed my eyes and tried it again. and yet again same results. just wow! it was so fast and so smooth! infact now i could playback around 5 HD 1080p movies simultaneously compared to 2 on win7 and 3 on xp. ubuntu beta took just a bit of customising like a new theme and segoe fonts to polish ubuntu. with such mind blowing performance of the ext4 im not sure if windows will be able to keep up. i've put win7 and winxp in virtualbox on ubuntu 9.04 for backup. whats your take on this? looking forward to your comments. Did you try to cop the same data from an ntfs to an ntfs partition in windows ? and no windows in a VM but an atual windows. also the ability to play back multiple hd movies would probably have more to to with the codec than the filesystem type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilt090 Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 @mouldy it was a casual test . One 500gb drive divided in 5 partitions. 2 ntfs and 3 ext4. @markjensen yeah even im interested in seeing more tests 2.5-3 times performance is deathblow to windows. maybe ms knew it was coming thats why they were working on WinFS. @Hawkman it was a regular partition not VM. i use VLC for all xp/win7/ubuntu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seventh Son Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Did you copy from NTFS to ext4 under Ubuntu? If yes, than neither MS nor NTFS has anything to do with it, since it's NTFS FS driver under Ubuntu that's doing it's job here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcho-Capitalist Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Yes, Microsoft keeps updating NTFS. The NTFS that shipped with NT4.0 is different than XP, which is different than 7.It would be interesting to see more testing than just the file copy. Nice start, but there are a lot of other things to test, too. I can definitely see the difference in my laptop from when it had XP to it's current Win7 install. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouldy Punk Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 @mouldy it was a casual test . One 500gb drive divided in 5 partitions. 2 ntfs and 3 ext4. @markjensen yeah even im interested in seeing more tests 2.5-3 times performance is deathblow to windows. maybe ms knew it was coming thats why they were working on WinFS. @Hawkman it was a regular partition not VM. i use VLC for all xp/win7/ubuntu Wasn't WinFS just a layer on top of NTFS that managed metadata? I'd guess the performance would still be dictated by the underlying file system, NTFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiagosilva29 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Just a small word of advice: ext4 is way superior to ext3 but it still has it's flaws, like the data loss due to delayed allocation. I hope that its problems get minimised by the time of the Karmic Koala release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Wasn't WinFS just a layer on top of NTFS that managed metadata? I'd guess the performance would still be dictated by the underlying file system, NTFS. WinFS was an indexed database of the files on the disk along with smart folders and some other features. Vista allready got the indexing and the smartfolders from winFS, and with the libraries, Windows 7 essentially has all of winFS, since the libraries is was WinFS was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 With NTFS I can pull almost all the speed capacity out of my disks, so if there is such a speed differential I would hazard a guess that you have a driver issue rather than simple outperformance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 With NTFS I can pull almost all the speed capacity out of my disks With any number of files/directories of any size? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udedenkz Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 FAT32 is faster than NTFS. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilt090 Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 @tiagosilva29 thnx for the headsup i checked it out at wikipedia and it says ubuntu 9.04 already includes patches for ext4 to fix the issue mentioned by you. which means these data transfer times are inclusive of performance slow down due to the patches! very cool!~! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 With any number of files/directories of any size? Yes, I can pull 50-60 MB/s out of it. I do not use custom security policies, file compression, or encryption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phemo Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 With NTFS I can pull almost all the speed capacity out of my disks, so if there is such a speed differential I would hazard a guess that you have a driver issue rather than simple outperformance. Yeah, same here. I seem to do around 110MB/sec off my disks which is pretty much as good as they're going to get, regardless of file system. If NTFS is so much slower on your system then something is wrong somewhere, because while NTFS isn't the best file system, it should certainly allow the disk to work at its full speed. Of course, lots of small files will make a difference, but the poster went as far as to say that he can play more 1080p movies at the same time so he is not talking small files here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha_omega Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 @mouldy it was a casual test . One 500gb drive divided in 5 partitions. 2 ntfs and 3 ext4. Where are those 2 NTFS partitions located: at the inner or outer part of the disk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Blue01 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 The software most Linux distros use to access NTFS (ntfs-3g) isn't nearly as fast as native NTFS access in Windows, so its not a great comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha_omega Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 The software most Linux distros use to access NTFS (ntfs-3g) isn't nearly as fast as native NTFS access in Windows, so its not a great comparison. He wasn't copying from NTFS to ext4 or vice versa... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REM2000 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 What is it with you FOSS people, Whenever windows gets any bit of positive news we have the FOSS brigade trying to convince us open source crap is superior . Weather its the slashdot crowd telling us the CIA are inside our computers or this nonsense .It gets old , Your not going to convince anyone here to ditch windows 7 just like your not going to get people to ditch Photoshop for GIMP . This nonsense belongs here , In the ignored section . The same reason people post when windows beats mac's and Linux, When Mac's beat Windows, Linux. etc People benchmark things all the time, from processors to cars. It helps to know if any changes in the competition's product has had any affect. When they test out a new car and it bets mine, doesn't mean im gonna change my car, however i do like to see the progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown_97784568745 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 The same reason people post when windows beats mac's and Linux, When Mac's beat Windows, Linux. etcPeople benchmark things all the time, from processors to cars. It helps to know if any changes in the competition's product has had any affect. When they test out a new car and it bets mine, doesn't mean im gonna change my car, however i do like to see the progress. Except that this wasn't a benchmark. It was more like "I cupied filez and ext4 was fast0r~ weee~". Also, the poster assumes too much non-sense and doesn't seem to know what he is talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majortom1981 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 This sounds more likea driver problem then a ntfs problem. I get full speed out of my hdd drives in ntfs all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
br0adband Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 My laptop hard drive cranks out 85MB/s so what do I care, it's not like switching to Linux with ext4 suddenly means it'll crank out 100, get real. Such comparisons are absolutely meaningless and a great way of stirring up stuff that's best left alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Yes, I can pull 50-60 MB/s out of it. I do not use custom security policies, file compression, or encryption. But the issue wouldn't be the raw speed but how long it takes to copy the files, more so when copying lots of small files. Obviously you should be able to copy at nearly full speed when copying data from each file, else you'd have some problem there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jygoro Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 How Could I be so Blind??? Right now I'll format my Windows 7 partition and install Ubuntu to copy my files 3 seconds faster and the most important, to be able to watch 5 HD 1080 MOVIES SIMULTANEOUSLY (??????) because win7 sucks so much! omg lolololol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts