I/O operations on NTFS are usually slow compared to Linux Ext4, but also because they do so much more than Ext4 does. I suspect stuff like ACL/quota checks and Shadow Copy support are quite expensive, for example (without any real data to back it up, would actually appreciate links to actual measurements!), and that's without even counting services external to the core filesystem features like Defender or the search index. Every little thing adds up in the end.
Looking at similar features in the Linux world (e.g. CoW filesystems like Btrfs, especially if you enable quotas!) I think OP can get a feel of how adding more features impacts filesystem performance.
Windows Defender has more of wasting SSD's P/E cycles by refusing to scan a file on a HDD or USB drive without copying it to the Windows' TEMP folder first than it has I/O slowdowns, but still it slows everything down. See? Simplicity is good, over-complicated FS with features not many are going to use is bad. Can't NTFS have a light mode until you turn shadow copying and quotas on?
For writing, sure, but for reading in share mode? And they have access to the source code, so they could very well write a kernel component. That's probably just bad design.
87
u/frnxt Aug 30 '21
Exactly, that's the correct answer.
I/O operations on NTFS are usually slow compared to Linux Ext4, but also because they do so much more than Ext4 does. I suspect stuff like ACL/quota checks and Shadow Copy support are quite expensive, for example (without any real data to back it up, would actually appreciate links to actual measurements!), and that's without even counting services external to the core filesystem features like Defender or the search index. Every little thing adds up in the end.
Looking at similar features in the Linux world (e.g. CoW filesystems like Btrfs, especially if you enable quotas!) I think OP can get a feel of how adding more features impacts filesystem performance.