ntfs-3g vs. ext2ifs

[meng]

-----Original message-----
From: lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org (Lennart Sorensen)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:19:13 -0400
To: tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [TLUG]: ntfs-3g vs. ext2ifs

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 07:40:42PM -0400, meng wrote:
> > Yeah, I have some iso files bigger than 4GB.
> > 
> > > I would't let windows write to ext2/3, and I don't trust ntfs writing
> > > from linux, so for exchanging data I will stick to fat32.
> > 
> > Hmm, you wouldn't and don't?
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > I didn't think of that. Thanks for the input.
> > Actually, since I use Linux mainly, I go with ext2/3.
> > If I have to access(read) it from Windows, I'll use ext2ifs.
> > If I have to write, I'll use Linux.
> 
> Well that's reasonable then.
> 
> > After all, I used ext2ifs only once[after installation, to confirm that it worked] :-)
> > The data is mainly static so the access is mainly read.
> 
> Well if read only access is all you need from both OSs then you could
> use either NTFS (which linux mounts readonly just fine) or ext2/ext3 if
> you are willing to install software on windows to read it.  If you want
> to write that is where I get concerned.
> 
> >   For the few
> > > files over 4GB I can split them.  They don't happen often enough to be
> > > a problem.
> > > 
> > > Anyhow, some people claim ntfs-3g works well.
> 
> Well I guess I just don't trust it yet.  NTFS has changed slightly with
> every single windows release (as in mount an NTFS drive under win2k
> and suddenly your NT4 box can't read it anymore until you install SP6.
> That sucks.), so why would I trust the linux driver to write to it given
> NTFS doesn't even have published specifications.
> 
> The ext2/3 driver for windows does have the advantage of a fully
> documentated filesystem, but I don't trust windows to not screw up in
> general (even on NTFS).  Also it requires extra software which makes it
> less convinient for general purpose data transfers to random machines.

Thanks for explaining your opinion and helping me to make an informed choice.
These are points that I didn't even think of.

> So for a read/write filesystem that I trust everybody to support and to
> read/write correctly, FAT32 is the only choice.  Too bad about the 4GB
> file size limit.  Chopping up files with whatever tool does the job
> can work around that though.

That is an option I must play with :-)

> -- 
> Len Sorensen
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists