If you’re running it thru the FUSE driver perhaps…proprietary ntfs drivers absolutely rip
Also make sure last access time is turned off, that is a nice auditing feature for opsec, but it slows things down for the normal user. It should be off by default above 256GB drive sizes.
There’s a good chance that’s what our issue was. It really struggled with a Java monolith project. Compiling was slow, but Mercurial was painfully slow on NTFS while ext4 was blazing fast.
Been on Macs at work for a few years and don’t plan on going back, but wish I knew this back then!
That’s why it’s still being used. Not a major reason to move on for MS.
Sad to see APFS not on the list (I know why, just wanted to compare).
Not sure if it’s gotten better in the last few years, but it’s also incredibly slow. Like orders of magnitude slower than ext3 or HFS.
If you’re running it thru the FUSE driver perhaps…proprietary ntfs drivers absolutely rip
Also make sure last access time is turned off, that is a nice auditing feature for opsec, but it slows things down for the normal user. It should be off by default above 256GB drive sizes.
I meant in Windows 🙂. I guess Windows XP, in particular.
last access time
There’s a good chance that’s what our issue was. It really struggled with a Java monolith project. Compiling was slow, but Mercurial was painfully slow on NTFS while ext4 was blazing fast.
Been on Macs at work for a few years and don’t plan on going back, but wish I knew this back then!
I’ve never thought of APFS as slow. Didn’t realize it was.
Oops, replied to wrong comment! I was talking about NTFS.
Yeah that was kind of a weird take, I’ve never felt it being slow nor heard it is from anywhere else.