[ILUG] NTFS is better than ext3?

[Satelle, StevenX]

This was used hourly by over 300/400 people, it was the old ntfs ver 4 used
by NT (service pack 3 I think) Since the switch 2 w2k and ntfs v5 It hasn't
happened again. But you should see the amount of roaming profile corruption
we see. It makes getting out of bed in the morning worthwhile. 

-----Original Message-----
From: jm at jmason.org [mailto:jm at jmason.org] 
Sent: 06 December 2002 12:32
To: Satelle, StevenX
Cc: 'Paul Jakma'; John P. Looney; Irish LUG list
Subject: Re: [ILUG] NTFS is better than ext3? 



Satelle, StevenX said:
> Did you ever see what happens when an ntfs fs runs out of inodes (or not
> inodes since it is windows, it runs out of fat space) auto-cannibalism. I
> saw a 100gig ntfs filesys containing over 300 peoples profiles/files get
> corrupted like that. You couldn't delete files, they would delete ok but
> then reappear a second later. Run rm -rvf on it and watch it delete the
same
> file for hours on end. + the backups which appeared to work fine wasn't
> backing up anything. The files names would be there but no data. The joys
of
> telling hundreds of people "no we cant get those files back"

You have *got* to be kidding.

And people use this in production environments?

--j.