best filesystem for writing to from both Linux and M$

Ephemeral

Whats the best filesystem for writing to from both Linux and M$?

FAT32 looks as if it wont be up to the job... (partition size and max file size is low)...

Lord.DragonFly.of.Dawn · Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2024 3:04 am Post subject:

Depends on what you need and the size of the partition. If you want just occasional data transfers then fat32 is probably the best way.

If you want to maintain directories and directory structures (your home folder or at least parts of it) across the systems then i would recommend storing the directories on NTFS (maybe even the windows install partition) and using ntfs-3g and symlinks from the Linux side.

_________________
ArchLinux x86_64 - Custom Built Desktop
ArchLinux x86_64 - Compaq CQ50 Laptop
ArchLinux i686 - Acer Aspire One Netbook
ArchLinux i686 - Dell Presario ze2000 (w/ shattered LCD)

PuppyLinux, CloneZilla, PartedMagic, DBAN - rescue thumbdrives
Windows 7 (x86_64 desktop alternate boot)

melloe · Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2024 6:08 am Post subject:

If both systems ( MS and either Linux/BSD/UNIX ) need to access the data, for now Fat 32 is Ok for small files and such, but eventually, NTFS is the only answer we have now if the storage area is large or the files or ISO's are. I have not had good luck with the program for reading EXT from windows, and it is limited ( at last the one I tried ) to EXT2 and limited EXT3.

However, I would NEVER recommend storing common data on the XP partition..NEVER. Too much chance of screwing something up, and on production machines this can be costly. For someone on their private box that likes to reinstall, the way to go. I would go as far as saying the windows partition should never be mounted unless in a rescue situation.

OTOH, an external or store partition of NTFS ia almost a must if 4gig ISO's and large single files are to be accessed by both systems.

Any OS that denies that reality will be destined for the dustbin in times to come IMO.

EDIT: I should add, there are several programs for optimizing FAT for under about 160Gig ( never tried it much bigger ), so that problem can be licked. Optimizing reduces file size to 4KB, as if it were 8gig or below for rather large partitions. We still have the large file size limitation

_________________
mell0: 1. Kubuntu, XP, Sabayon 2. Mandriva,Mint, Mephis
Thor: 1. VISTA, Fedora 2. Chakra, Debian
Sam:XP, SuSE Zues: win7, SuSE testing

Ephemeral · Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2024 3:20 pm Post subject:

Ok thanks.. thats given me a better idea

what im looknig at is about 80GB of smallish files (<200mb typically)

and probably about 30GB of files typically over 0.5GB some reaching that 4GB+ size

nukes · Linux Guru Joined: 29 Aug 2024 Posts: 4558

I use ext3. Have done for a number of years (put it this way, it's been a long time since I've had windows)
http://www.fs-driver.org/

Only thing is it won't always mount if the partition was not cleanly unmounted (good thing).

For ntfs-3g you have to remember to run fixntfs on shutdown if you don't want to hose stuff (granted, sometimes not necessary, but bad consequences if you don't some time)

_________________
Gentoo x86-64 2.6.29.1
FreeBSD 7-CURRENT
Arch x86 2.6.30

melloe · Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2024 3:10 am Post subject:

Ephemeral

FAT32 should work for you. Just don't try to download a large >4gig ISO and expect to store it <G><
If that 80 gigs is a commercial external, it will be optimized, and be sure to unmount before shutting down just to be safe. If it just a partition, small files about 64 to 114 KB ( if I did the head math right ) will at the least take up several times the space**. But that should not be a problem. Not sure how a given Linux distrro would handle this on shutdown but generally regular, non optimized FAT32 is not as subject to getting gunked up as NTFS or optimized FAT32 in such a case I have been told and my experience suggests.

Good luck

**If you are getting close to 80% of the space used, any additions should be done with care as you never know how much space a files with small subfiles will take up on a regular FAT32 partition several times over 8 gig.

I have gone to the extent of making several smaller FAT32 partitions for specific purposes when I was dealing with outdated Linux distros and small files that will have many subfolders with small files. They can take up a lot of space otherwise.

_________________
mell0: 1. Kubuntu, XP, Sabayon 2. Mandriva,Mint, Mephis
Thor: 1. VISTA, Fedora 2. Chakra, Debian
Sam:XP, SuSE Zues: win7, SuSE testing

	USA Linux Users Group Forum Index » OTHER	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1