1:04 p.m.
Hi people,
I'm looking at dual-booting a laptop, and am planning to split the hard
drive into three partitions, one for Windows, one for Linux, and one
that both systems can access.
I was going to use FAT32 for the shared partition, because last time I
did this (some years ago), that was the best option for a partition that
both Linux & Windows needed to access. However, it has limitations (like
2GB maximum file size) that could be problematic. Does anyone have a
better suggestion for which file system I should use?
Russ
12:02 p.m.
2009/10/31 Russ <russ(a)phillipsuk.org>:
Hi people,
I'm looking at dual-booting a laptop, and am planning to split the hard
drive into three partitions, one for Windows, one for Linux, and one
that both systems can access.
I was going to use FAT32 for the shared partition, because last time I
did this (some years ago), that was the best option for a partition that
both Linux & Windows needed to access. However, it has limitations (like
2GB maximum file size) that could be problematic. Does anyone have a
better suggestion for which file system I should use?
Russ
Have you thought about ext3? I understand that with the correct
'drivers' (if that is the correct term or would it be better called
libraries?) Windows plays nicely with ext3 now. I've been thinking of
trying this myself but I may wait until I have upgraded my Ubuntu tin.
--
==============================================
Kevan
Linux user #373362
Staffordshire
**********************************************
www.freeworld-recycling.org
'From me to you towards a sustainable future.'
**********************************************
5:02 p.m.
2009/10/31 Russ <russ(a)phillipsuk.org>:
Hi people,
I'm looking at dual-booting a laptop, and am planning to split the hard
drive into three partitions, one for Windows, one for Linux, and one
that both systems can access.
I was going to use FAT32 for the shared partition, because last time I
did this (some years ago), that was the best option for a partition that
both Linux & Windows needed to access. However, it has limitations (like
2GB maximum file size) that could be problematic. Does anyone have a
better suggestion for which file system I should use?
Linux has no problem with ntfs.
Russ
_______________________________________________
Staffslug mailing list
Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
8:02 p.m.
2009/10/31 stuart bell <sailing1(a)gmail.com>:
2009/10/31 Russ <russ(a)phillipsuk.org>:
> Hi people,
>
> I'm looking at dual-booting a laptop, and am planning to split the hard
> drive into three partitions, one for Windows, one for Linux, and one
> that both systems can access.
>
> I was going to use FAT32 for the shared partition, because last time I
> did this (some years ago), that was the best option for a partition that
> both Linux & Windows needed to access. However, it has limitations (like
> 2GB maximum file size) that could be problematic. Does anyone have a
> better suggestion for which file system I should use?
Linux has no problem with ntfs.
Hmmm...... supposedly. I do still have to odd time when it does.
Which is why I'm going to be exploring the extfs 3 system on Windows.
--
==============================================
Kevan
Linux user #373362
Staffordshire
**********************************************
www.freeworld-recycling.org
'From me to you towards a sustainable future.'
**********************************************
12:24 p.m.
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 20:02 +0000, Kevanf1 wrote:
> Linux has no problem with ntfs.
>
Hmmm...... supposedly. I do still have to odd time when it does.
Which is why I'm going to be exploring the extfs 3 system on Windows.
When I did my dual boot installation (a manual installation on to a
fakeraid array - that was fun) I left my main storage partition
formatted as ext3, mainly because ntfs-3g writing support wasn't yet
stable.
And this has worked very well from Windows XP. Not that I've tried the
ext2 IFS with Vista/7...
However, beware - the ext2 IFS has no knowledge of journalling, hence
any ext3 volume mounted with it will be mounted purely as ext2, which
isn't ideal given Windows' habit of dying.
Saying that, I'm not aware the ext2 IFS has ever caused me any
instability. :)
Technically ntfs-3g is a more 'advanced' file system than ext2, so
there's reasons for an against either.
Tom
9 p.m.
ntfs every time!
How long ago did you have probs with linux support for ntfs? I think more
recently it's pretty fully supported.
Chris.
2009/10/31 Russ <russ(a)phillipsuk.org>
Hi people,
I'm looking at dual-booting a laptop, and am planning to split the hard
drive into three partitions, one for Windows, one for Linux, and one
that both systems can access.
I was going to use FAT32 for the shared partition, because last time I
did this (some years ago), that was the best option for a partition that
both Linux & Windows needed to access. However, it has limitations (like
2GB maximum file size) that could be problematic. Does anyone have a
better suggestion for which file system I should use?
Russ
_______________________________________________
Staffslug mailing list
Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
9:01 p.m.
let me put it this way... NTFS support under linux or ext support under
windows... I know which I'd trust more with my data!
2009/10/31 Russ <russ(a)phillipsuk.org>
Hi people,
I'm looking at dual-booting a laptop, and am planning to split the hard
drive into three partitions, one for Windows, one for Linux, and one
that both systems can access.
I was going to use FAT32 for the shared partition, because last time I
did this (some years ago), that was the best option for a partition that
both Linux & Windows needed to access. However, it has limitations (like
2GB maximum file size) that could be problematic. Does anyone have a
better suggestion for which file system I should use?
Russ
_______________________________________________
Staffslug mailing list
Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
8:15 a.m.
I agree, NTFS is going to cause you the least grief for doing this.
That in mind, there's no need for a 3rd partition. You can just read and
write your files straight off the volume that Windows is installed on!
Jon
2009/10/31 Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com>
let me put it this way... NTFS support under linux or ext support
under
windows... I know which I'd trust more with my data!
2009/10/31 Russ <russ(a)phillipsuk.org>
> Hi people,
>
> I'm looking at dual-booting a laptop, and am planning to split the hard
> drive into three partitions, one for Windows, one for Linux, and one
> that both systems can access.
>
> I was going to use FAT32 for the shared partition, because last time I
> did this (some years ago), that was the best option for a partition that
> both Linux & Windows needed to access. However, it has limitations (like
> 2GB maximum file size) that could be problematic. Does anyone have a
> better suggestion for which file system I should use?
>
> Russ
>
> _______________________________________________
> Staffslug mailing list
> Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
> http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
>
_______________________________________________
Staffslug mailing list
Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
3:33 p.m.
No need for a seperate partition for data; true but I think it's a good
idea. After a few months, when windows rot has well and truely set in you
can reinstall or restore from an image your partition with windows on
without the worry about data.
I wonder if /home can be an NTFS partition...? Never tried it!
Chris
2009/11/1 Jonathan Marriott <jon(a)kiwiuk.net>
I agree, NTFS is going to cause you the least grief for doing this.
That in mind, there's no need for a 3rd partition. You can just read and
write your files straight off the volume that Windows is installed on!
Jon
2009/10/31 Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com>
> let me put it this way... NTFS support under linux or ext support under
> windows... I know which I'd trust more with my data!
>
> 2009/10/31 Russ <russ(a)phillipsuk.org>
>
> > Hi people,
> >
> > I'm looking at dual-booting a laptop, and am planning to split the hard
> > drive into three partitions, one for Windows, one for Linux, and one
> > that both systems can access.
> >
> > I was going to use FAT32 for the shared partition, because last time I
> > did this (some years ago), that was the best option for a partition
that
> > both Linux & Windows needed to access. However, it has limitations
(like
> > 2GB maximum file size) that could be problematic. Does anyone have a
> > better suggestion for which file system I should use?
> >
> > Russ
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Staffslug mailing list
> > Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
> > http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Staffslug mailing list
> Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
> http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
>
_______________________________________________
Staffslug mailing list
Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
5:03 p.m.
2009/10/31 Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com>:
let me put it this way... NTFS support under linux or ext support
under
windows... I know which I'd trust more with my data!
Yes, and me and it wouldn't be a closed source file format either :-)
I may have it wrong and it's ext2 that has MS Windows support?
Whichever, it's the one I'd rather go with. After all, the open
source version has been built to transparently work with both OS's.
NTFS has a lot of guess work in there.
The last time I had Linux NTFS problems? A few weeks ago. It simply
could not read from an external HDD that was NTFS formatted. I ended
up transferring the data onto a FAT32 formatted HDD and Linux (Ubuntu
9.04) read it sweet as a nut then.
--
==============================================
Kevan
Linux user #373362
Staffordshire
**********************************************
www.freeworld-recycling.org
'From me to you towards a sustainable future.'
**********************************************
8:37 p.m.
Personally, I would go probably recommend ext3, but if I was doing it
myself I'd use NTFS out of lazyness...
I don't think NTFS will cause you many problems but ext3 I would have
thought would be safer?
Adam
10:33 p.m.
Yes, and me and it wouldn't be a closed source file format either
:-)
I may have it wrong and it's ext2 that has MS Windows support?
Yeah, It's in MS's best interests to support an open source file system eh?
2009/11/1 Kevanf1 <kevanf1(a)gmail.com>
> 2009/10/31 Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com>:
> > let me put it this way... NTFS support under linux or ext support under
> > windows... I know which I'd trust more with my data!
> >
Yes, and me and it wouldn't be a closed source file format either
:-)
>
I may have it wrong and it's ext2 that has MS Windows support?
> Whichever, it's the one I'd rather go with. After all, the open
> source version has been built to transparently work with both OS's.
> NTFS has a lot of guess work in there.
>
> The last time I had Linux NTFS problems? A few weeks ago. It simply
> could not read from an external HDD that was NTFS formatted. I ended
> up transferring the data onto a FAT32 formatted HDD and Linux (Ubuntu
> 9.04) read it sweet as a nut then.
> --
> ==============================================
>
> Kevan
> Linux user #373362
> Staffordshire
> **********************************************
> www.freeworld-recycling.org
>
> 'From me to you towards a sustainable future.'
> **********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Staffslug mailing list
> Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
> http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
>
8:12 a.m.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, and me and it wouldn't be a closed source file format
either :-)
> I may have it wrong and it's ext2 that has MS Windows support?
Yeah, It's in MS's best interests to support an open source file system eh?
As far as I can tell, MS don't support ext2 or ext3, but Windows
(since at least 2000) has a mechanism for installing file systems, and
third parties have written ext2 drivers. I've found two:
http://www.ext2fsd.com/
http://www.fs-driver.org/
I'm not expecting to use Windows much (we've not had a Windows system
in the house for years, and work is all Linux), so I'm inclined to go
with ext2 or ext3 for the shared partition.
Thanks for all the advice.
Russ
2:20 p.m.
2009/11/1 Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com>:
> Yes, and me and it wouldn't be a closed source file format
either :-)
> I may have it wrong and it's ext2 that has MS Windows support?
Yeah, It's in MS's best interests to support an open source file system eh?
Chris we may be at crossed purposes here? My recommendation for using
the ext (2 or 3) fs under Windows is because we have the choice of
either using ntfs in Linux where there has admitedly been a lot of
guess work to get it working. Or, we can use the libraries for ext 2
or 3) that have been transparently written to work fully under Windows
without any hidden surprises.
I'm not trying to be funny or get one over on anybody, it's just that
it seems more sensible to me to use something for mission critical
work that has been built to work with all aspects out in the open.
NTFS is not designed to work with Linux it is designed only for
Windows NT systems and only works under Linux because of the hard work
conducted by many people in our community. That work has been carried
out blindfold in some cases with guess work to get it working.
Ah, apparently this driver:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd/
is the recommended one and it works for both read and write on ext2
and ext3 file systems under Windows.
--
==============================================
Kevan
Linux user #373362
Staffordshire
**********************************************
www.freeworld-recycling.org
'From me to you towards a sustainable future.'
**********************************************
5:25 p.m.
I'm not trying to be funny or get one over on anybody, it's
just that
it seems more sensible to me to use something for mission critical
work that has been built to work with all aspects out in the open.
NTFS is not designed to work with Linux it is designed only for
Windows NT systems and only works under Linux because of the hard work
conducted by many people in our community. That work has been carried
out blindfold in some cases with guess work to get it working.
This was the case a few years back but NTFS-3G is perfectly stable and
proven and the company behind has even signed an IP agreement with MS
:
http://www.tuxera.com/about-us/news/837/
Personally I would use NTFS with NTFS-3G rather than an Windows driver
that half supports EXT3 (does not support the journalling as
previously mentioned).
Tig
7:49 p.m.
Tig wrote:
Personally I would use NTFS with NTFS-3G rather than an Windows
driver
that half supports EXT3 (does not support the journalling as
previously mentioned).
I'm still inclined to go with ext3. I'm expecting to use Windows very
rarely, so I think it makes sense to go with the file system that will
have better support under Linux (I'm assuming that NTFS under Linux
won't support things like symlinks). Plus, I'd rather support an open
standard.
Russ
9:44 p.m.
Personally I would use NTFS with NTFS-3G rather than an Windows driver
that half supports EXT3 (does not support the journalling as
previously mentioned).
Succinctly put! Plus... with one eye on recommendations for new users of
dual boot machines, there's less work to do on the windows side if an NTFS
partition is used.
Chris.
2009/11/2 Tig <staffslug(a)caveconnect.com>
>I'm not trying to be funny or get one over on anybody,
it's just that
> it seems more sensible to me to use something for mission critical
> work that has been built to work with all aspects out in the open.
> NTFS is not designed to work with Linux it is designed only for
> Windows NT systems and only works under Linux because of the hard work
> conducted by many people in our community. That work has been carried
> out blindfold in some cases with guess work to get it working.
>
This was the case a few years back but NTFS-3G is perfectly stable and
proven and the company behind has even signed an IP agreement with MS
:
http://www.tuxera.com/about-us/news/837/
Personally I would use NTFS with NTFS-3G rather than an Windows driver
that half supports EXT3 (does not support the journalling as
previously mentioned).
Tig
_______________________________________________
Staffslug mailing list
Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
8:39 p.m.
I have been trying to follow your thread on this subject. I can't work out how you
decided which file system to use and how you made the selection (not as clever as you
lot). Anyway, I have managed to partition my hard disc between WindowsProfessional 2000
and Kubuntu. I did it on an old computer that I have just in case I lost all the data.
As it happens it works brilliantly and I have not lost any data etc. However, my computer
now tells me that one partition is ext3 and one is swap. I don't know what this means
or how I happened to end up with these. Could you just explain what I have done. Sorry
to be semi hopeless-can you just give me a clue.
Jenette
jenette palmer
--- On Sun, 1/11/09, Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Staffslug] Windows/Linux shared partition
To: staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
Date: Sunday, 1 November, 2009, 10:33 PM
Yes, and me and it wouldn't be a closed source file format either
:-)
I may have it wrong and it's ext2 that has MS Windows support?
Yeah, It's in MS's best interests to support an open source file system eh?
2009/11/1 Kevanf1 <kevanf1(a)gmail.com>
> 2009/10/31 Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com>:
> > let me put it this way... NTFS support under linux or ext support under
> > windows... I know which I'd trust more with my data!
> >
Yes, and me and it wouldn't be a closed source file format either
:-)
>
I may have it wrong and it's ext2 that has MS Windows support?
> Whichever, it's the one I'd rather go with. After all, the open
> source version has been built to transparently work with both OS's.
> NTFS has a lot of guess work in there.
>
> The last time I had Linux NTFS problems? A few weeks ago. It simply
> could not read from an external HDD that was NTFS formatted. I ended
> up transferring the data onto a FAT32 formatted HDD and Linux (Ubuntu
> 9.04) read it sweet as a nut then.
> --
> ==============================================
>
> Kevan
> Linux user #373362
> Staffordshire
> **********************************************
> www.freeworld-recycling.org
>
> 'From me to you towards a sustainable future.'
> **********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Staffslug mailing list
> Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
> http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
>
_______________________________________________
Staffslug mailing list
Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
8:45 p.m.
2009/11/2 JENETTE PALMER <jenette.palmer(a)btinternet.com>:
I have been trying to follow your thread on this subject. I
can't work out how you decided which file system to use and how you made the selection
(not as clever as you lot). Anyway, I have managed to partition my hard disc between
WindowsProfessional 2000 and Kubuntu. I did it on an old computer that I have just in
case I lost all the data. As it happens it works brilliantly and I have not lost any data
etc. However, my computer now tells me that one partition is ext3 and one is swap. I
don't know what this means or how I happened to end up with these. Could you just
explain what I have done. Sorry to be semi hopeless-can you just give me a clue.
Sounds like you just need to mount the w*n partition.
Jenette
jenette palmer
--- On Sun, 1/11/09, Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Staffslug] Windows/Linux shared partition
To: staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
Date: Sunday, 1 November, 2009, 10:33 PM
> Yes, and me and it wouldn't be a closed source file format either :-)
> I may have it wrong and it's ext2 that has MS Windows support?
Yeah, It's in MS's best interests to support an open source file system eh?
2009/11/1 Kevanf1 <kevanf1(a)gmail.com>
> 2009/10/31 Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com>:
> > let me put it this way... NTFS support under linux or ext support under
> > windows... I know which I'd trust more with my data!
> >
> Yes, and me and it wouldn't be a closed source file format either :-)
>
> I may have it wrong and it's ext2 that has MS Windows support?
> Whichever, it's the one I'd rather go with. After all, the open
> source version has been built to transparently work with both OS's.
> NTFS has a lot of guess work in there.
>
> The last time I had Linux NTFS problems? A few weeks ago. It simply
> could not read from an external HDD that was NTFS formatted. I ended
> up transferring the data onto a FAT32 formatted HDD and Linux (Ubuntu
> 9.04) read it sweet as a nut then.
> --
> ==============================================
>
> Kevan
> Linux user #373362
> Staffordshire
> **********************************************
> www.freeworld-recycling.org
>
> 'From me to you towards a sustainable future.'
> **********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Staffslug mailing list
> Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
> http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
>
_______________________________________________
Staffslug mailing list
Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
_______________________________________________
Staffslug mailing list
Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
8:51 p.m.
2009/11/2 JENETTE PALMER <jenette.palmer(a)btinternet.com>:
I have been trying to follow your thread on this subject. I
can't work out how you decided which file system to use and how you made the selection
(not as clever as you lot). Anyway, I have managed to partition my hard disc between
WindowsProfessional 2000 and Kubuntu. I did it on an old computer that I have just in
case I lost all the data. As it happens it works brilliantly and I have not lost any data
etc. However, my computer now tells me that one partition is ext3 and one is swap. I
don't know what this means or how I happened to end up with these. Could you just
explain what I have done. Sorry to be semi hopeless-can you just give me a clue.
Jenette
jenette palmer
Ah, in a very brief nutshell. Linux has supported the old MS Windows
standard filesystems of FAT, FAT16 and FAT32 for years. It does so
very succesfully. Trouble is, none of the FAT iterations can support
file sizes of bigger 4gb. So, trying to copy over your average DVD is
out of the question. You would have to mess about cutting it up into
two or more sections - messy. Linux has just recently started to
'fully' support the newer NTFS file system (it's actually termed New
Technology File system so my addition of 'file system' is really
redundant). Now, I still insist that the 'fully' supported bit is not
my wording as I have had problems recently as have many others.
Anyway, disregarding that for now. NTFS supports larger file sizes
than 4gb so, in theory we can use it as a go between for Windows
partitions and Linux ones (or for swapping between Windows PC's and
Linux ones if you like).
There is an alternative to this which is to use the Linux file system
(well, one of them) ext2 or ext3 with a set of drivers installed onto
a Windows PC to allow Windows to read and write to the ext2 or 3 file
system.
That is, as stated, a very brief explanation of it.
--
==============================================
Kevan
Linux user #373362
Staffordshire
**********************************************
www.freeworld-recycling.org
'From me to you towards a sustainable future.'
**********************************************
11:05 a.m.
I'm getting it - thanks
just lack of knowledge-thanks for the long reply as long as I can go in the correct
direction I can find it out.
thanks
Jenette
jenette palmer
--- On Mon, 2/11/09, Kevanf1 <kevanf1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Kevanf1 <kevanf1(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Staffslug] Windows/Linux shared partition
To: staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
Date: Monday, 2 November, 2009, 8:51 PM
2009/11/2 JENETTE PALMER <jenette.palmer(a)btinternet.com>:
I have been trying to follow your thread on this subject. I
can't work out how you decided which file system to use and how you made the selection
(not as clever as you lot). Anyway, I have managed to partition my hard disc between
WindowsProfessional 2000 and Kubuntu. I did it on an old computer that I have just in
case I lost all the data. As it happens it works brilliantly and I have not lost any data
etc. However, my computer now tells me that one partition is ext3 and one is swap. I
don't know what this means or how I happened to end up with these. Could you just
explain what I have done. Sorry to be semi hopeless-can you just give me a clue.
Jenette
jenette palmer
Ah, in a very brief nutshell. Linux has supported the old MS Windows
standard filesystems of FAT, FAT16 and FAT32 for years. It does so
very succesfully. Trouble is, none of the FAT iterations can support
file sizes of bigger 4gb. So, trying to copy over your average DVD is
out of the question. You would have to mess about cutting it up into
two or more sections - messy. Linux has just recently started to
'fully' support the newer NTFS file system (it's actually termed New
Technology File system so my addition of 'file system' is really
redundant). Now, I still insist that the 'fully' supported bit is not
my wording as I have had problems recently as have many others.
Anyway, disregarding that for now. NTFS supports larger file sizes
than 4gb so, in theory we can use it as a go between for Windows
partitions and Linux ones (or for swapping between Windows PC's and
Linux ones if you like).
There is an alternative to this which is to use the Linux file system
(well, one of them) ext2 or ext3 with a set of drivers installed onto
a Windows PC to allow Windows to read and write to the ext2 or 3 file
system.
That is, as stated, a very brief explanation of it.
--
==============================================
Kevan
Linux user #373362
Staffordshire
**********************************************
www.freeworld-recycling.org
'From me to you towards a sustainable future.'
**********************************************
_______________________________________________
Staffslug mailing list
Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
11:56 a.m.
2009/11/4 JENETTE PALMER <jenette.palmer(a)btinternet.com>:
I'm getting it - thanks
just lack of knowledge-thanks for the long reply as long as I can go in the correct
direction I can find it out.
thanks
Jenette
jenette palmer
Glad to be of some help :-)
To be fair, file systems are very much partitioning in Linux. Some
users like their partitions set up in a certain way and can cite very
good reasons why it works for them. Then there are others who are
happy to allow the distro to just partition as it comes out of the
box.
Generally speaking I think more people will stick with the filesystem
that the distro automatically uses and it can, in some cases be
difficult to change the main ones that are used for 'root', 'home' and
'swap' (which is a specific file system in itself and best not messed
with I believe). If you have, or add, more partitions then it's
easier to set that up with a different file system to experiment and
see if one is quicker than another.
--
==============================================
Kevan
Linux user #373362
Staffordshire
**********************************************
www.freeworld-recycling.org
'From me to you towards a sustainable future.'
**********************************************
8:52 p.m.
Don't worry too much I will try and explain :-) Some of the
discussion was more to do with the merits of each option :-)
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:39 PM, JENETTE PALMER
<jenette.palmer(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
I have been trying to follow your thread on this subject. I
can't work out how you decided which file system to use and how you made the selection
(not as clever as you lot).
Both methods would work anyway. One way is installing software so
that Windows can understand a linux filesystem, the other is to use a
Windows filesystem that linux understands (most linux distributions
have NTFS support already installed via a program called NTFS-3G)
this is why on your dual boot machine can read your Windows partition.
Anyway, I have managed to partition my hard disc between
WindowsProfessional 2000 and Kubuntu. I did it on an old computer that I have just in
case I lost all the data. As it happens it works brilliantly and I have not lost any data
etc. However, my computer now tells me that one partition is ext3 and one is swap. I
don't know what this means or how I happened to end up with these. Could you just
explain what I have done. Sorry to be semi hopeless-can you just give me a clue.
EXT3 is the normal filesystem used in Linux, a swap partition is a
special type of filesystem that allows the computer to use it when it
runs low on memory. All that it sounds like is that you have a
perfectly normal linux install :-)
Hope that helps :-)
Jenette
jenette palmer
--- On Sun, 1/11/09, Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Staffslug] Windows/Linux shared partition
To: staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
Date: Sunday, 1 November, 2009, 10:33 PM
> Yes, and me and it wouldn't be a closed source file format either :-)
> I may have it wrong and it's ext2 that has MS Windows support?
Yeah, It's in MS's best interests to support an open source file system eh?
2009/11/1 Kevanf1 <kevanf1(a)gmail.com>
> 2009/10/31 Chris Snow <cr.snow(a)gmail.com>:
> > let me put it this way... NTFS support under linux or ext support under
> > windows... I know which I'd trust more with my data!
> >
> Yes, and me and it wouldn't be a closed source file format either :-)
>
> I may have it wrong and it's ext2 that has MS Windows support?
> Whichever, it's the one I'd rather go with. After all, the open
> source version has been built to transparently work with both OS's.
> NTFS has a lot of guess work in there.
>
> The last time I had Linux NTFS problems? A few weeks ago. It simply
> could not read from an external HDD that was NTFS formatted. I ended
> up transferring the data onto a FAT32 formatted HDD and Linux (Ubuntu
> 9.04) read it sweet as a nut then.
> --
> ==============================================
>
> Kevan
> Linux user #373362
> Staffordshire
> **********************************************
> www.freeworld-recycling.org
>
> 'From me to you towards a sustainable future.'
> **********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Staffslug mailing list
> Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
> http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
>
_______________________________________________
Staffslug mailing list
Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
_______________________________________________
Staffslug mailing list
Staffslug(a)staffslug.org.uk
http://lists.staffslug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/staffslug
9:49 a.m.
2009/11/2 Tig <staffslug(a)caveconnect.com>:
Don't worry too much I will try and explain :-) Some of the
discussion was more to do with the merits of each option :-)
EXT3 is the normal filesystem used in Linux,
It may be better
to say that ext3 is 'a' normal filesystem used with
Linux. I've lost count of how many there actually are but it (ext 3)
is just one of many choices that we have :-)
Not wanting to get into a technical debate there are file systems that
we can use in Linux that are better at certain tasks than others.
There was an excellent article in Linux Format magazine about 12
months ago (I think) which gave a comparison of file systems that
could be used specifically for video, general day to day computing and
others that were best used on a server.
To my dismay I have still tried exploring these various options on
either my desktop Linux PC or the server that I have half built.....
Actually, how about a discussion from personal viewpoints about the
various file systems? Does anybody use any 'exotic' systems and are
they any better?
==============================================
Kevan
Linux user #373362
Staffordshire
**********************************************
www.freeworld-recycling.org
'From me to you towards a sustainable future.'
**********************************************
5489
days inactive
5493
days old
23 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Adam Egan -
Chris Snow -
JENETTE PALMER -
Jonathan Marriott -
Kevanf1 -
Russ -
Russ Phillips
-
stuart bell -
Tig -
Tom