On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:05:45 +0200 Jan Henrik Sylvester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a particular reason our ntfsprogs port did not get updated for > a year but now it has? > None I'm aware of, I just received a request and did it one day, as it was very similar to the fusefs-ntfs port. > So far I did use ntfs-3g for mounting and ntfsprogs for resizing etc. > with very few problems. Once on copying many files, two of them were > only partially written with error messages "Bad address" and "No such > file or directory". On the second attempt, I was able to copy them. > (Moreover, using qemu volumes residing on ntfs-3g does not work, but I > guess that is more of a fuse issue than an ntfs-3g one.) > > Today, our ntfsprogs port got updated to 2.0.0. On ntfs-3g.org, it is > stated that "[they] warn against the usage of ntfsprogs-2.0.0 because of > major reliability issues (write failure, sparse file corruption, utility > hang, etc). Use an earlier version instead until they get fixed." > > Some google search shows that former ntfsprogs developer(s) are now > working on ntfs-3g and the authors of both projects have some > discrepancies: http://forum.linux-ntfs.org/viewtopic.php?t=741 > http://www.nabble.com/Re:-ntfsprogs-2.0.0-released-p12958587.html > > All I can tell is that ntfsprogs really has not been updated for a year > and ntfs-3g seems to be actively developed. > > Either the ntfs-3g developer is correct and using ntfsprogs 2.0.0 is > dangerous, or he is incorrect, which would make using ntfs-3g a little > dubious. > > Do you have any information from a third party? Do you think that both > FreeBSD ports ntfs-3g and ntfsprogs 2.0.0 are reliable? > I haven't tested the latest ntfsprogs very much, but both suffer from a reliability issue described in their respective README.FreeBSD (as other file systems using fuse4bsd). > Thanks, > Jan Henrik
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
