ntfs-3g vs. ext2ifs
meng-R6A+fiHC8nRWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org
Thu Jul 30 01:24:53 UTC 2009
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?
> > 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
More information about the Legacy