Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
I'm aware there are semi-legal ways to get full NTFS support in linux, but... There are many things I cannot wait for, such as Acid2 compliance in Firefox, and stable ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    de_dust
    Posts
    115

    Full NTFS support.


    I'm aware there are semi-legal ways to get full NTFS support in linux, but...

    There are many things I cannot wait for, such as Acid2 compliance in Firefox, and stable XGL/AIGLX packages in gentoo repositories. But, there is one thing that I've been waiting for for much much longer than either of those: Full NTFS Support in the Linux kernel.

    Is anyone working on this? Is this any kind of priority to the kernel developers? Will we *ever* have full NTFS support, or will it always be a dream? NTFS has been around for many many years....

    this is not a complaint...this is a concern.

  2. #2
    Linux Guru antidrugue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    3,211
    Apparently fuse-ntfs works OK:
    http://wiki.linux-ntfs.org/doku.php?id=ntfsmount

    Full NTFS support? Why use it when you the good old FAT32?
    "To express yourself in freedom, you must die to everything of yesterday. From the 'old', you derive security; from the 'new', you gain the flow."

    -Bruce Lee

  3. #3
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    de_dust
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by antidrugue
    Apparently fuse-ntfs works OK:
    http://wiki.linux-ntfs.org/doku.php?id=ntfsmount

    Full NTFS support? Why use it when you the good old FAT32?
    you see, this kind of stuff confuses me. why wouldn't this code just be merged into the kernel if it was reliable?

    that said, it might not be reliable

    p.s.

    vfat only supports up to 32 gig partitions.

  4. #4
    Linux User DThor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ca..na...daaa....
    Posts
    319
    The reason is that MS has released no documentation on the internal workings of NTFS. Literally, it had to be reverse-engineered, and to give you a notion of just how complicated that was, take a look at what they know so far. That's the reason everyone warns you that reading, for the most part, is fine, but writing...isn't guaranteed. That's the main reason it's not been folded into the kernel.

    Amazes me they got as far as they have.

    There's far, far better filesystems out there than NTFS, unfortunately MS has the upper hand - they own it, and they use it primarily in the #1 OS. :/ Not sure I'd agree with antidrugue - FAT pretty well sucks eggs. All it has going for it is a reliable Linux port.

    DT

  5. #5
    Linux Guru antidrugue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    3,211
    Quote Originally Posted by zeroth404
    you see, this kind of stuff confuses me. why wouldn't this code just be merged into the kernel if it was reliable?
    The Linux kernel includes NTFS with the ntfs driver which works very well to read, but not well at all to write.

    Quote Originally Posted by zeroth404
    vfat only supports up to 32 gig partitions.
    Well, not exactly. The Windows OS will only allow you to format a FAT32 partition up to 32G, but it will recognize partitions of up to 2TB (even 8TB according to Microsoft's numbers). With Linux you can format FAT32 partitions up to that limit (2TB):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat32
    http://support.microsoft.com/?id=184006

    I have never done it, but I did format partitions up to 200G (in FAT32 that is) in linux quite a few times (which of course were perfectly recognized in Windows).
    "To express yourself in freedom, you must die to everything of yesterday. From the 'old', you derive security; from the 'new', you gain the flow."

    -Bruce Lee

  6. #6
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    de_dust
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by antidrugue
    The Linux kernel includes NTFS with the ntfs driver which works very well to read, but not well at all to write.
    I know

    Quote Originally Posted by antidrugue
    I have never done it, but I did format partitions up to 200G (in FAT32 that is) in linux quite a few times (which of course were perfectly recognized in Windows).

    interesting. why would it be limited to 32gb then? thats just silly. is it as *reliable* as a smaller fat32 partition?

  7. #7
    Linux Guru antidrugue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    3,211
    Quote Originally Posted by zeroth404
    interesting. why would it be limited to 32gb then? thats just silly.
    Because they want you to use NTFS? Really, I have no idea.

    The only "reason" they give is "This behavior is by design. If you need to create a volume larger than 32 GB, use the NTFS file system instead." (c.f. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=184006) Luckily there is another solution: use Linux


    Quote Originally Posted by zeroth404
    is it as *reliable* as a smaller fat32 partition?
    Yop, never had a problem. And as they say: "The Windows 2000 FastFAT driver can mount and support volumes larger than 32 GB that use the FAT32 file system..." (c.f. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=184006).
    "To express yourself in freedom, you must die to everything of yesterday. From the 'old', you derive security; from the 'new', you gain the flow."

    -Bruce Lee

  8. #8
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    de_dust
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by antidrugue
    Because they want you to use NTFS? Really, I have no idea.

    The only "reason" they give is "This behavior is by design. If you need to create a volume larger than 32 GB, use the NTFS file system instead." (c.f. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=184006)




    Yop, never had a problem. And as they say: "The Windows 2000 FastFAT driver can mount and support volumes larger than 32 GB that use the FAT32 file system..." (c.f. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=184006).

    is NTFS really that much more reliable than Fat32?

    I'm now considering turning my 50gb ntfs backup drive, 120gb ntfs programs drive, and 7gb ntfs Win2kPro drive into vfat.

    ...But I don't want to risk data loss because of an incompetent file system

    I'm not sure Win2KPro will install on a vfat.

    I've always considered that NTFS is to vfat as Wine is to Vinegar.

  9. #9
    Linux Guru antidrugue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    3,211
    Quote Originally Posted by zeroth404
    is NTFS really that much more reliable than Fat32?

    I'm now considering turning my 50gb ntfs backup drive, 120gb ntfs programs drive, and 7gb ntfs Win2kPro drive into vfat.

    ...But I don't want to risk data loss because of an incompetent file system
    Of course FAT32 as several limitations. For one, it doesn't feature file system journaling. And it doesn't support any of the security features of NTFS (encrytion, quotas, etc.). You can read more about it here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat32

    Plus, Microsoft provides a tool to convert the FAT32 format to NTFS, but not the other way around. I'm sure you can do it with some partitionning tool, but I can't recommand it as I've never personally done it. Don't try it unless you have everything backed up. I guess you can do it (convert a NTFS file system to FAT32), but I wouldn't

    About NTFS:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntfs

    About file systems:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems

    I'm not sure Win2KPro will install on a vfat.
    Yop, it does. I have XP running on FAT32.
    "To express yourself in freedom, you must die to everything of yesterday. From the 'old', you derive security; from the 'new', you gain the flow."

    -Bruce Lee

  10. #10
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    de_dust
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by antidrugue
    Of course FAT32 as several limitations. For one, it doesn't feature file system journaling. And it doesn't support any of the security features of NTFS (encrytion, quotas, etc.). You can read more about it here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat32

    Plus, Microsoft provides a tool to convert the FAT32 format to NTFS, but not the other way around. I'm sure you can do it with some partitionning tool, but I can't recommand it as I've never personally done it. Don't try it unless you have everything backed up. I guess you can do it (convert a NTFS file system to FAT32), but I wouldn't

    About NTFS:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntfs

    About file systems:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems



    Yop, it does. I have XP running on FAT32.

    I've installed WinXP on a fat32 partition, but I recall not being able to format a partition as fat32 in Win2kPro Installation, or something similar.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •