ntfs-3g vs. ext2ifs

[meng]

-----Original message-----
From: lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org (Lennart Sorensen)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:54:04 -0400
To: tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [TLUG]: ntfs-3g vs. ext2ifs
> 
> I just remembered there is another option for filesystem.  How about UDF-plain?
> 
> UDF plain is for read/write on any random access media.
> 
> Windows supports it, linux supports it, max filesize is 16EiB, supports
> unix permissions and user/group, as well as whatever windows wants.
> 
> I haven't used it since the time I was using DVD-RAM drives for backups,
> but it worked well for that.
> 
> UDF: Universal Disk Format.  Sounds like exactly what you are looking for.
> And Microsoft doesn't own the spec to it.

Thanks but I'll go with ext2/3 for now until I explore the possibilities.

It occurred to me that if I used FAT32, split and cat, I'd still need a "staging filesystem" that can handle over 4GB files.

>From a very quick look, I gather:

Video may pose some issues with splitting and joining which can be resolved.
See http://webupd8.blogspot.com/2009/05/join-and-split-files-including-video-in.html

UDF may also pose some issues, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format#Standalone_DVD_player_compatibility

All this is from a preliminary search. I'll have to look further when I have the time.

Thanks again.
--
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