[Newlug] Re: NTFS or FAT32 ?

[D. Stark]

Don't throw away 60gb of mp3 quoting me, but the 2.6 has R/W 
support for NTFS. If I HAD to choose one or the other, it'd be NTFS, 
mainly because of the 2gb file limit, which you might just run into if 
you're ever doing PVR stuff.

Not to mention that FAT32 is doggedly slow. My biggest peeve with both of 
them is that any file copied to the partition immediately gets 
permissioned 755, owned by root by default. I think you can set a custom 
umask and user in your fstab, though.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Joe LaChapell wrote:

> Andrew,
> 
> NTFS is Linux is "poorly supported" in that it is read-only.  Assuming 
> you are not going to save music files ONLY from the DOS partition, I'd 
> format it FAT32.  This way you can r/w from Windows as well as Slackware.
> 
> A link that may be valuable to you:
> http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/
> 
> -joe
> 
> Moore, Andrew S wrote:
> 
> > Hi guys/gals,
> > 
> > I am trying to decide which filesystem
> > to store my collection of music and video.
> > 
> > Currently I'm running linux and xp in a 
> > dual-boot machine. Currently I have a secondary
> > hard drive formatted as NTFS through a previous
> > install of Win2kpro. Curiously, my drive is un-
> > accessible through xp, but read-only from slack.
> > 
> > I haven't heard of windows supporting the ext2/3
> > or reiserfs. On the other hand, I've heard that
> > FAT32 is inherently insecure, and that NTFS support
> > under linux is poorly supported.
> > 
> > If anyone had 2 cents they'd like to throw at me,
> > I'd appreciate it very much.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Andrew M
> > 
> > 
> 

-- 
-- ------------- dirk @ oceallc.com  ----------------- --
"All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could
 really set the darkness on. And you took his work and 
 perverted it into those hideous machines!" 
			-- Sylia Stingray, kind of
-- --------------------------------------------------- --