On 27/03/13 01:26, Per Jessen wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Basil Chupin wrote:
On 27/03/13 00:13, Per Jessen wrote:
Basil Chupin wrote:
So, why the *big* difference in transfer rates between copying files to a partition formatted in *ext4* and one formatted in *ntfs*?! Isn't write-support in ntfs still somewhat iffy or not quite supported? Or is it because ntfs is a user-space filesystem perhaps? I don't use ntfs, I could be way off. "Et tu, [Brute]?" :-)
Wot is a "user-space filesystem"?
Why should whatever it this "user-space" thingie work the same as what one gets when using USB2 and not what one would expect when using USB3? As Greg suggested, maybe USB-2 is the bottleneck, so going USB-3 won't give you anything extra. ... maybe USB-2 is the _next_ bottleneck ...
Folks....... I thank each and all for the input so far to my question re the copying speed between to ext4 and ntfs formatted partitions. But, honesty, none of it makes sense to me - all this talk about "user-space" and all that. It has only confused me more than I was ever confused when delving into grub and grub2. Especially this reference to "maybe USB-2 is the _next_bottleneck....". I am using USB3. The new external Seagate is USB3 and is connected to an USB3 port on the motherboard. The HDDs from which I am copying the files to the external USB3 Seagate are all SATA3 HDDS and recognised by the kernel as having UDMAs of 133. Now, just to throw the spanner into what otherwise would be a very dull situation :-) , I just copied a 7.1GB file to the external Seagate's ntfs formatted partition using the stock standard cp command and this took something like ~4 minutes as against what mc took to copy a smaller file last night of ~15 minutes (working from memory here I fully admit). With this result nothing makes sense......:-( . Confused even more..... BC -- Using openSUSE 12.3 x86_64 with KDE 4.10.1 & kernel 3.8.4-1 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org