Job Bautista
2021-08-06 14:34:53 UTC
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/paragon-is-working-to-get-its-ntfs3-filesystem-into-the-linux-kernel/
Oh, and apparently this GPL'd NTFS implementation by Paragon is written
from scratch according to their FAQ, so they aren't open-sourcing their
https://www.paragon-software.com/home/ntfs3-driver-faq/
They could've just open-sourced their original implementation and rely
solely on paid support for revenue, but I guess this works too.
Anyway it's long overdue for a proper NTFS implementation in the kernel.
Sure, there's NTFS-3G which works for most people, but regaining back
the speed loss from being in userspace is still something. Anything to
help those who dual-boot Windows and Linux would be cool! And you still
have the choice if you prefer userspace NTFS-3G over Paragon's
kernelspace NTFS3.
--
Job Bautista
An XUL fanatic, and an add-ons developer. I also do some simple
userscripts and bash scripting.
I like Cyndaquil. He's obviously the best Pokemon starter. Every Johto
Pokemon is cool too.
http://rw.rs/~job/
--
Job Bautista
An XUL fanatic, and an add-ons developer. I also do some simple
userscripts and bash scripting.
I like Cyndaquil. He's obviously the best Pokemon starter. Every Johto
Pokemon is cool too.
http://rw.rs/~job/
Torvalds seems bullish on getting Paragon's project across the line
eventually.
In March of last year, proprietary filesystem vendor Paragon
Software unleashed a stream of anti-open source FUD about a
Samsung-derived exFAT implementation headed into the Linux kernel.
Several months later, Paragon seemed to have seen the error of its
ways and began the arduous process of getting its own implementation
of Microsoft's NTFS (the default filesystem for all Windows machines)
into the kernel as well.
Although Paragon is still clearly struggling to get its processes
and practices aligned to open source-friendly ones, Linux kernel
BDFL Linus Torvalds seems to have taken a personal interest in the
process. After nearly a year of effort by Paradox, Torvalds
continues to gently nudge both it and skeptical Linux devs in order
to keep the project moving forward.
# Why Paragon?
To those familiar with daily Linux use, the utility of Paragon's
version of NTFS might not be immediately obvious. The Linux kernel
already has one implementation of NTFS, and most distributions make
it incredibly easy to install and use another FUSE-based
implementation (ntfs-3g) beyond that.
Both existing implementations have problems, however. The in-kernel
implementation of NTFS is extremely old, poorly maintained, and
should only be used read-only. As a result, most people who actually
need to mount NTFS filesystems on Linux use the ntfs-3g driver
instead.
Ntfs-3g is in reasonably good shape—it's much newer than the
in-kernel ntfs implementation, and as Linux filesystem guru Ted Ts'o
points out, it actually passes more automated filesystem tests than
Paragon's own ntfs3 does.
Unfortunately, due to operating in userspace rather than in-kernel,
ntfs-3g's performance is abysmal. In Ts'o's testing, Paragon's ntfs3
completed automated testing in 8,106 seconds—but the FUSE-based
ntfs-3g required a whopping 34,783 seconds.
Bugs and performance aside, ongoing maintenance is a key aspect to
Paragon's ntfs3 making it in-kernel. Torvalds opined that "Paragon
should just make a pull request for [ntfs3]"—but he did so after
noting that the code should get OKs from current maintainers and
that Paragon itself should maintain the code going forward. (Paragon
developer Konstantin Komarov quickly replied that the company
intended to continue maintaining the code, once accepted.)
# Why not Paragon?
Although Torvalds himself seems positive about getting Paragon's
ntfs3 driver mainlined, as do several other users and developers,
there are still some concerns about getting Paragon and its workflow
properly integrated into the kernel dev community and up to that
community's standards.
Ted Ts'o—core maintainer of Linux's ext3/ext4 filesystems, and the
e2fsprogs userspace utilities used to manage them—seems to be the
most critical. In addition to the slightly higher number of failed
automated tests he found in Paragon's code, he notes other issues
such as whole-system deadlocks that pop up if ntfs3 is stressed too
hard. (This is an issue that we have heard over the years from
people who've purchased Paragon's ntfs3, as well.)
Ts'o also raises questions about maintenance and communication,
saying, "I'd feel better if *someone* at Paragon Software responded
to Darrick [Wong] and my queries about their quality assurance,
and/or made commitments that they would at least *try* to fix the
problems that about 5 minutes of testing using fstests turned up
trivially."
Fellow developer Darrick Wong added that he wants to make sure
Paragon was invested in maintenance moving forward, so that ntfs3
wouldn't "become one of the shabby Linux filesystem drivers, like
[the current in-kernel ntfs]."
# The path forward
Despite skepticism from Ts'o and Wong, we broadly expect that
inclusion of Paragon's ntfs3 will happen eventually. The company has
worked for a year so far to take its code from 27,000 lines tossed
over the wall into a Linux-ready patch set—and although primary
developer Komarov may not have always replied as quickly or
thoroughly as Ts'o and Wong prefer, he does continue to respond.
For his own part, Torvalds seems determined to find a performant,
modern, maintainable replacement for the ancient (2001-era) and
seldom-used ntfs implementation in the kernel now. As long as
Paragon remains willing to keep playing, it seems likely to get
there eventually—perhaps even in time for the 5.15 kernel.
Paragon's NTFS3, not to be confused with NTFS-3G. :Peventually.
In March of last year, proprietary filesystem vendor Paragon
Software unleashed a stream of anti-open source FUD about a
Samsung-derived exFAT implementation headed into the Linux kernel.
Several months later, Paragon seemed to have seen the error of its
ways and began the arduous process of getting its own implementation
of Microsoft's NTFS (the default filesystem for all Windows machines)
into the kernel as well.
Although Paragon is still clearly struggling to get its processes
and practices aligned to open source-friendly ones, Linux kernel
BDFL Linus Torvalds seems to have taken a personal interest in the
process. After nearly a year of effort by Paradox, Torvalds
continues to gently nudge both it and skeptical Linux devs in order
to keep the project moving forward.
# Why Paragon?
To those familiar with daily Linux use, the utility of Paragon's
version of NTFS might not be immediately obvious. The Linux kernel
already has one implementation of NTFS, and most distributions make
it incredibly easy to install and use another FUSE-based
implementation (ntfs-3g) beyond that.
Both existing implementations have problems, however. The in-kernel
implementation of NTFS is extremely old, poorly maintained, and
should only be used read-only. As a result, most people who actually
need to mount NTFS filesystems on Linux use the ntfs-3g driver
instead.
Ntfs-3g is in reasonably good shape—it's much newer than the
in-kernel ntfs implementation, and as Linux filesystem guru Ted Ts'o
points out, it actually passes more automated filesystem tests than
Paragon's own ntfs3 does.
Unfortunately, due to operating in userspace rather than in-kernel,
ntfs-3g's performance is abysmal. In Ts'o's testing, Paragon's ntfs3
completed automated testing in 8,106 seconds—but the FUSE-based
ntfs-3g required a whopping 34,783 seconds.
Bugs and performance aside, ongoing maintenance is a key aspect to
Paragon's ntfs3 making it in-kernel. Torvalds opined that "Paragon
should just make a pull request for [ntfs3]"—but he did so after
noting that the code should get OKs from current maintainers and
that Paragon itself should maintain the code going forward. (Paragon
developer Konstantin Komarov quickly replied that the company
intended to continue maintaining the code, once accepted.)
# Why not Paragon?
Although Torvalds himself seems positive about getting Paragon's
ntfs3 driver mainlined, as do several other users and developers,
there are still some concerns about getting Paragon and its workflow
properly integrated into the kernel dev community and up to that
community's standards.
Ted Ts'o—core maintainer of Linux's ext3/ext4 filesystems, and the
e2fsprogs userspace utilities used to manage them—seems to be the
most critical. In addition to the slightly higher number of failed
automated tests he found in Paragon's code, he notes other issues
such as whole-system deadlocks that pop up if ntfs3 is stressed too
hard. (This is an issue that we have heard over the years from
people who've purchased Paragon's ntfs3, as well.)
Ts'o also raises questions about maintenance and communication,
saying, "I'd feel better if *someone* at Paragon Software responded
to Darrick [Wong] and my queries about their quality assurance,
and/or made commitments that they would at least *try* to fix the
problems that about 5 minutes of testing using fstests turned up
trivially."
Fellow developer Darrick Wong added that he wants to make sure
Paragon was invested in maintenance moving forward, so that ntfs3
wouldn't "become one of the shabby Linux filesystem drivers, like
[the current in-kernel ntfs]."
# The path forward
Despite skepticism from Ts'o and Wong, we broadly expect that
inclusion of Paragon's ntfs3 will happen eventually. The company has
worked for a year so far to take its code from 27,000 lines tossed
over the wall into a Linux-ready patch set—and although primary
developer Komarov may not have always replied as quickly or
thoroughly as Ts'o and Wong prefer, he does continue to respond.
For his own part, Torvalds seems determined to find a performant,
modern, maintainable replacement for the ancient (2001-era) and
seldom-used ntfs implementation in the kernel now. As long as
Paragon remains willing to keep playing, it seems likely to get
there eventually—perhaps even in time for the 5.15 kernel.
Oh, and apparently this GPL'd NTFS implementation by Paragon is written
from scratch according to their FAQ, so they aren't open-sourcing their
Is there a difference between NTFS3 and “Microsoft NTFS for Linux by
Paragon Software”?
As already stated previously (FAQ3), NTFS3 is a standalone NTFS
implementation written from scratch in 4 months. NTFS3 has a GPL-2.0
license, while Microsoft NTFS for Linux by Paragon Software has a
proprietary license. Microsoft NTFS for Linux by Paragon Software, in
addition to some features (ugm, fifo, socket, char dev, etc.), also
includes support (regarding any performance issues) and utilities
(chkNTFS and mkNTFS). We believe both we and the community will
benefit from this contribution in the long term.
For the rest of the FAQ, go toParagon Software”?
As already stated previously (FAQ3), NTFS3 is a standalone NTFS
implementation written from scratch in 4 months. NTFS3 has a GPL-2.0
license, while Microsoft NTFS for Linux by Paragon Software has a
proprietary license. Microsoft NTFS for Linux by Paragon Software, in
addition to some features (ugm, fifo, socket, char dev, etc.), also
includes support (regarding any performance issues) and utilities
(chkNTFS and mkNTFS). We believe both we and the community will
benefit from this contribution in the long term.
https://www.paragon-software.com/home/ntfs3-driver-faq/
They could've just open-sourced their original implementation and rely
solely on paid support for revenue, but I guess this works too.
Anyway it's long overdue for a proper NTFS implementation in the kernel.
Sure, there's NTFS-3G which works for most people, but regaining back
the speed loss from being in userspace is still something. Anything to
help those who dual-boot Windows and Linux would be cool! And you still
have the choice if you prefer userspace NTFS-3G over Paragon's
kernelspace NTFS3.
--
Job Bautista
An XUL fanatic, and an add-ons developer. I also do some simple
userscripts and bash scripting.
I like Cyndaquil. He's obviously the best Pokemon starter. Every Johto
Pokemon is cool too.
http://rw.rs/~job/
--
Job Bautista
An XUL fanatic, and an add-ons developer. I also do some simple
userscripts and bash scripting.
I like Cyndaquil. He's obviously the best Pokemon starter. Every Johto
Pokemon is cool too.
http://rw.rs/~job/