|
|
|
|
|
|
by dspillett
945 days ago
|
|
|
So anecdotal evidence is not useful, as proven by your anecdotal evidence? :) FWIW I've found NTFS and ext3/4 to be of similar reliability over the years, in general use and in the face of improper shutdown. Metadata journaling does a lot to preserve the filesystem in such circumstances. Most of the few significant problems I've had have been due to hardware issues, which few filesystems on their own will help you with. It is worth noting that when you run tools like chkdsk or fsck, some of the issues reported and fixed are not data damaging, or structurally dangerous, or at least not immediately so. For instance free areas marked in such a way that makes them look used to the allocation algorithms. |
|
|
However, I'm also not making a statement about NTFS's reliability vs ext3/ext4. In the years that I worked in that position, I maybe dealt with Linux systems 3 times.
Reminder of the original statement:
> NTFS is an extremely resilient yet boring filesystem, I cannot remember the last time I had to run chkdsk even after an improper shutdown.
I never said anything about catastrophic failure of an NTFS filesystem. I have experienced that, but it was comparatively rare (still happened though). I have, however, have had to run chkdsk fairly often to correct errors. Sometimes user data was affected to some degree, but it was often a matter of system stability and getting Windows back to running without issues.
I still find that NTFS is reasonably resilient and have no qualms with it. I just want to push back against the idea that nothing ever goes wrong with NTFS, which was implied by your statement that you can't remember the last time you used chkdsk.