Results 1 to 10 of 35
which lunix distribtions r compatable with NTFS partitions?...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 01-13-2003 #1Just Joined!
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Posts
- 9
ntfs
which lunix distribtions r compatable with NTFS partitions?
- 01-13-2003 #2Linux Guru
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Location
- Täby, Sweden
- Posts
- 7,578
All, more or less. Some ship with the NTFS module, and it can probably be downloaded or at least compiled from source for those that don't.
However, NTFS support in linux really isn't complete. The filesystem is a Microsoft closed spec one, so everything has to be reverse-engineered. The entire driver has EXPERIMENTAL status in the kernel tree, but read support as said to work for most parts. Write support, on the other hand, has DANGEROUS status in the kernel tree, and does damage the file system. Most of the time, the damage is repairable, but that's not guaranteed.
- 01-13-2003 #3Just Joined!
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Posts
- 9
so its safest to either change to fat or have no linux at all?
- 01-13-2003 #4Linux Engineer
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Lebanon, pa
- Posts
- 994
Why would you have to switch to fat32? If you need to write to your ntfs partition, I would just do it in windows and not linux. I dual booted on my laptop with rh and win2k. I didn't have any problems playing my mp3s from my ntfs partition in linux or playing rtcw.
- 01-13-2003 #5Linux User
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Daytona Beach, FL
- Posts
- 487
why would you just not use fat32 for windows and be able to have access to the partition under linux also?
majorwoo
Quiet brain, or I\'ll stab you with a Q-tip.
- 01-14-2003 #6Linux Guru
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Location
- Täby, Sweden
- Posts
- 7,578
Well, say what you will, but as long as you're in windows, ntfs is the better filesystem. As long as you only need read access in linux, ntfs will do fine.
- 01-14-2003 #7Linux User
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Daytona Beach, FL
- Posts
- 487
(you mean as long as you only need access in windows, or only read access in linux - your the most vocal of the anti-ntfs-write-with-linux movement
)
majorwoo
Quiet brain, or I\'ll stab you with a Q-tip.
- 01-14-2003 #8Linux Engineer
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Lebanon, pa
- Posts
- 994
fat32 clusters grow extremely large on hd sizes today. You will waste to much space as ntfs are set to 4KB no matter the size of hd.
- 01-14-2003 #9Linux Guru
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Location
- Täby, Sweden
- Posts
- 7,578
Why would FAT32 clusters be large? It provides an addressing space for 4 billion clusters, so you'd need a 2TB+ hard drive for one cluster to have to span more than one sector. If they grow large, it has to be a design flaw (which, of course, wouldn't surprise me too much...)
- 01-14-2003 #10Linux Engineer
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Lebanon, pa
- Posts
- 994
Maxium amount of clusters you can get on a fat32 fs is 268,435,456 so I think that sets the limit to 2TB for a fat32 partition. Anyway fat32 increases cluster size as the hd grows in GB. CHeck out this table:
Cluster(KB) Size Min part size(GB) Max Part Size(GB)
4 0.5 8
8 8 16
16 16 32
32 32 2000
Also fat32 must increase the cluster size to keep the size of the FAT down. MS doesn't let the FAT grow larger then 8MB.
Reply With Quote 
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
