On Mar 29, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Andrew Falanga wrote:
Both drives are similar in capability. They are both 7200 rpm
drives, etc.
So what is so much different about NTFS from FFS?
All sorts of things. :-)
Are the file systems
really that different that MS's system is simply dog slow, or is
the format
for FreeBSD skipping some "integrity" checks on the surface of the
drive or
whatever (this assumes that the MS install process is actually
doing this).
The Windows format is probably doing a bad sector scan and testing
each and every sector during the format. The Unix newfs/mkfs doesn't
perform bad-sector checking, but you can invoke things like the
smartmon utilities to perform disk checking later on.
Please understand, I intend only to find the answer to the question
with
this. I'm looking for starting a "war" about who's file system
rocks more
than the other. The idea of an integrity check was just
speculation between
my colleague and I because there such a speed difference in formatting
things (once windows is installed) when choosing between a "Quick
Format" or
a "Full Format".
A "quick format" is the Windows equivalent of what newfs does, yes.
P.S. on a side note, but related to this, in what directories under
the
system sources will I find the source code for the FFS used by
FreeBSD, and
how are those modules structured?
See:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/ufs/ufs/
...versus other filesystems found here:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/fs/
--
-Chuck
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
