Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows Alternatives to NTFS?

Cliff posted more than 10 years ago | from the seeking-more-filesystem-drivers dept.

Data Storage 140

Maidjeurtam asks: "I'm a multi-OS user. Although Linux is what I use the most these days (I run it on my primary P4 box and on my iBook), I also run Mac OS X and a Windows XP on other machines. Of course, those boxes are networked, but sometimes, I just prefer to plug one machine's hard disk into another. I often work with big DV files (> 4GiB) and it looks like I have no other choice than having a different filesystem on each of my boxes. Granted, Linux can read NTFS (Macs can too) and even write to NTFS partitions thanks to tools like Captive, but I don't like the idea of running Windows code on my Linux box. In fact, I don't want my data stored on a proprietary, closed filesystem. I've googled a bit and it seems there's no modern (free-as-in-speech) filesystem I can install on Windows. I'd love to have ReiserFS running on my XP box, for example. Am I condemned to stay with NTFS, or do you guys know of a Windows-compatible, open filesystem that I can use?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Modern Liberal (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306223)

What It Means to be a Liberal.

The other day I found myself very puzzled.

I know what I believe, why I believe it, the philosophical foundations of my beliefs. I've studied everything from Karl Marx to Ludwig von Mises, from Friedrich Hayek to FDR, from Edmund Burke to Bertrand Russell, from Aristotle to Ayn Rand.

I understand modern conservative thought. I understand libertarian thought. I understand classical liberalism. What I can't begin to comprehend is modern liberalism. Maybe you can help me. As near as I can tell, to be a liberal:

You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

IF there is a church that is valid, it has been pre-approved by the government.

You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand ... in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty, fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie O'Donnell is not really a man who is jealous of Tom Selleck.

You have to believe conservatives are racists but that black people couldn't make it without your help.

You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

Looking back on my list, it seems shallow, muddled, contradictory, divorced of logic and a bit sadistic.

Well, then. If that doesn't describe the modern liberal, I don't know what does.

Re:The Modern Liberal (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306319)

You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

Well? Can it? Other than PBS, the only television I watch is on DVD from netflix. I can't find a reason to subscribe to those 500+ channels of free market garbage, but then again you are just a troll that probably didn't think about this list much.

Re:The Modern Liberal (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306557)

ROTFLMFAO!!!

Re:The Modern Liberal (-1, Offtopic)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306634)

I think this describes the NeoLiberal aka the Democrat. There isn't s a political party in the United States, other than maybe the socialists, who are truly liberal anymore.

to be you (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9307364)

Whereas, to be you you have to simply believe that every silly thought that comes into your head is true and unquestionable.

If you believe that those thoughts have come straight from gawd, then you're a good member of the religious right. Or an islamic jihadist. Or... Not that anyone from outside those groups can find any significant differences.

FAT (0)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306249)

It's not "open" but it's well-known and a bit of a defacto standard.

File size (3, Insightful)

sethadam1 (530629) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306258)


Last I checked, you couldn't have files over 4 gb in size on a FAT partition.

Re:File size (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306305)

Last I checked, you couldn't have files over 4 gb in size on a FAT partition.

You're mistaken. I regularly do video editing on my Windows98 box and the files are sometimes over 20 gigs in size. Check your facts next time please before bashing FAT.

Re:File size (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306350)

You are the one mistaken. FAT16 is limited to ~2GB and FAT32 is limited at ~4GB.

And on top of that there is a ~32GB partition size limit.

Re:File size (5, Informative)

DavidYaw (447706) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306481)

And on top of that there is a ~32GB partition size limit.

That's an artificial limit imposed by Windows, to get people to switch to NTFS. Pick up a copy of PartitionMagic, it'll create those large FAT32 partitions just fine.

Re:File size (1)

SecretMethod70 (569755) | more than 10 years ago | (#9308049)

As another person pointed out, that is incorrect. I speak from experience. I had a 120GB FAT32 drive at one point (it is now partitioned). If all you're going off of is what the Windows installer will let you do, then you'll get incorrect information. Partition Magic, or even fdisk can make a partition of FAT32 over 32GB.

Re:File size (1, Informative)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306657)

Aside from questioning why anyone who cares about their video files would trust them to a system as unstable as Crash-o-Matic 98 (instead of at least working with Win2k), I do have to seriously question this person's knowledge of what their editing program actualy does.

Win98 DOES have the previously mentioned file limit, as well as a limit in partition size (at least when formatted by Windows).

On the other hand, if you look at a program like Adobe Premiere, the file sizes are rarely as big as you think they are -- the video is usually distributed over a number of files.

Re:File size (4, Informative)

jmac880n (659699) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306310)

Last I checked, you couldn't have files over 4 gb in size on a FAT partition.

Maybe not, but most modern DV tools have options to break files into manageable-sized chunks, usually 1 or 2 Gb.

Re:File size (1)

jmitchel!jmitchel.co (254506) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306739)

Last I checked, my 60GB fat32 formatted USB drive was working just fine. XP/2K didn't want to format that large a partition, but my parents' old Win ME machine was pleased as punch to do it, and every machine/OS I've used it with has been just fine with it.

As for >4GB files, that's not my problem.

Re:File size (1)

spooky_nerd (646914) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306824)

From Microsoft's own web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/document ation/W indows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resour ces/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc _fil_tdrn.asp

MS Windows can mount FAT 32 partitions larger than 32 GB, but will not create partitions larger than 32GB.

Re:File size (2, Interesting)

LSD-OBS (183415) | more than 10 years ago | (#9308749)

I'm not sure why you are so insistent on not believing what people are saying here, but let me drill the point in.

You *CAN* and *DO* create FAT32 partitions larger than 32Gb in various revisions of Windows. The largest one I have created, using Microsoft's own Windows Installer, was 200Gb. However, there are many revisions that have an added 'feature' which removes this ability. The Win2k OEM CD that came with my laptop, for instance, refuses. Yet my friend's Win2k CD happily creates FAT32 partitions as big as you like.

Re:File size (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 10 years ago | (#9307074)

Yes let's go for that 'simple' solution! :-)

Re:File size (1)

riprjak (158717) | more than 10 years ago | (#9310312)

hell, Id be surprised if you could get over 2GB (FAT 32, 2^32.... :)

err!
jak

Re:File size (1)

riprjak (158717) | more than 10 years ago | (#9310331)

oops :) too early for me... 2^32 is, of course, 4GB... FAT16, 2^16 is 2GB... but its all been said already

Follow up (1)

sethadam1 (530629) | more than 10 years ago | (#9310392)

Actually, the limitation I'm concerned about is FILE SIZE. Partition size is a different story. While Windows would cap FAT partitions at 2 GB for the first partition and 4 GB for the next 3 in Win95 and Win98 (not sure which editions), newer versions of FAT WILL CREATE 32GB PARTITIONS!

However, using Linux, I have created, and STILL USE a 62 GB FAT32 partition. I use it both in Linux and Windows with no problems. Windows can mount a much larger FAT filesystem than it will create.

This is not conjecture - this is my primary machine (running XP and Mandrake 9.1) and I'm typing from it now.

Re:FAT (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 10 years ago | (#9308017)

A bit of trivia for you ...

I've found that Linux (at least 2.4.something) will have problems using a fat32 filesystem over 128 GB in size. Windows will work with it fine, but Linux will work mostly but writing to one file will eventually cause another file to get truncated to zero bytes ... nasty.

I never really tracked down exactly what was going on, but it was easily reproducible on at least two different boxes just by creating a fat32 partition over 128 GB, using both mkdosfs and Partition Magic and mounting it under Linux and performing some operations on it.

FAT32 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306253)

FAT32

s/Slashdot/Google "AskSlashdot" (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306295)

Re:s/Slashdot/Google "AskSlashdot" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306874)

You must be new here.

Re:s/Slashdot/Google "AskSlashdot" (1)

vbrtrmn (62760) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306970)

#!/usr/bin/perl
my $forum = "AskSlashdot";
$forum =~ s/Slashdot/Google/i;
print $forum;
exit;

Re:s/Slashdot/Google "AskSlashdot" (1)

passthecrackpipe (598773) | more than 10 years ago | (#9309066)

This was actually asked sometime ago, sort of - the answer is OpenAFS [openafs.org]

Re:s/Slashdot/Google "AskSlashdot" (1)

Foolhardy (664051) | more than 10 years ago | (#9309697)

Are you sure this is a physical file system? In the Windows quick start guide, it lists actions taken by the installer. Installing a kernel-mode filesystem driver (a .sys into \system32\drivers) is not one of the steps. The only thing that goes into a Windows directory is a .cpl control panel extension to configure it. Furthermore, the documentation also states that:
If you are configuring this AFS Server as a File Server, you must specify an NTFS volume to designate as an AFS partition. Every AFS File Server must have at least one partition designated exclusively to storing AFS volumes, and all AFS volumes must reside on partitions that have been designated as AFS partitions. On a Windows NT machine, only NTFS volumes can be designated as AFS partitions. In addition, AFS partitions can be created only on NTFS volumes that are empty (or contain only the Windows NT Recycle Bin).
This implies that NTFS is still there, underneath AFS. A partition wouldn't still be NTFS if it used a different filesystem.

AFS appears to be a distributed file serving system, like Microsoft DFS.

Re:s/Slashdot/Google "AskSlashdot" (1)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 10 years ago | (#9310966)

"a distributed file serving system, like Microsoft DFS." ..Not!

"Microsoft DFS" is nothing but a redirector that creates the illusion of a single filesystem tree from a set of regular old SMB servers.

Re:s/Slashdot/Google "AskSlashdot" (1)

Foolhardy (664051) | more than 10 years ago | (#9311108)

What does AFS do? From what I read, AFS does the same thing.

Re:s/Slashdot/Google "AskSlashdot" (2, Informative)

Earlybird (56426) | more than 10 years ago | (#9309832)

  • This was actually asked sometime ago, sort of - the answer is OpenAFS
It's not the answer. OpenAFS is not a local file system, which is what the original poster is asking about. OpenAFS is a distributed, networked file system implemented on top of an existing physical file system; it stores its files in whatever file system you're running, so on Windows it would be using NTFS or FAT.

Re:s/Slashdot/Google "AskSlashdot" (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 10 years ago | (#9311343)

That search shows nothing relevant. Does this mean it's now a 'valid' question, or that you are a wiener?

ISO9660 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306320)

At my office we're very keen on standards compliance and basicly we wouldn't even run Windows until Windows 2000, because of the lack of certain critical standards supports (I'm not going to say the policy was that great, until 1997 we used the UCSD pSystem for everything. Have you ever seen a Pentium 166 running the pSystem? No? Exactly.) All documents are distributed in PDF and XML (was HTML) formats, email is strictly IMAP, etc. Internal programming has to be POSIX compliant and I've seen collegues dragged through the dirt for using mmap().

What we did for file systems was standardize on ISO9660 throughout, though we are considering a move to UFS so we have support for larger files. Windows supports it, though you have to hack the registry to get write access enabled, and we ended up writing a custom "disk format" tool to actually get disks initialised because, needless to say, W2K doesn't actually allow you to format disks as ISO9660 by default.

Well recommended. There are some neat features of ISO9660, like the VAX/VMS style "versions" for instance. Unfortunately, bog standard ISO9660 has crappy 32.3 style filenames (and for maximum compatability we're encouraged to just do 8.3), so it's not a perfect solution (another reason we want to switch to UFS.)

Definitely recommended though. It's a little slow, but everything will read it.

Re:ISO9660 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306379)

What's wrong with mmap?

Generally shared memory is the absolute fastest way to do IPC. Great for caching and stuff like that.

Is there another, cleaner alternative? Is it cross-platform?

Re:ISO9660 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306392)

It may be the best tool for the job, but it's not standard.

Re:ISO9660 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306514)

Yeah but all the big operating systems support it (Windows, Linux, OS X, Solaris, etc.) in some form. I use a nice cross-platform shared memory API I developed.

Re:ISO9660 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306555)

mmap is standard POSIX ...so...like...WTF?

Re:ISO9660 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306569)

It wasn't then. As can be evidenced from the number of competing APIs for it today.

Re:ISO9660 (3, Informative)

mst76 (629405) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306839)

What we did for file systems was standardize on ISO9660 throughout, though we are considering a move to UFS so we have support for larger files.
You're upgrading from iso9660 to UFS [wikipedia.org] ? Are you sure you don't mean UDF [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:ISO9660 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306984)

Sorry, yup. I always get those two confused...

Fat sucks (1)

lord_offo (659108) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306336)

Oke... but FAT32 sucks.. its slow.. its propetary and MS just recommends everyone to upgrade to NTFS..

Re:Fat sucks (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306437)

FAT32 is anything but slow. It's probably at or near the top of the list of fastest filesystems. It's so simple, how could it not be?

It's limited though. Limited file sizes, limited partition sizes, limited file attributes, limited numbers of files in directories, no compression or anything like that. No journaling, etc. Those are reasons why people don't use it... performance is not one of them.

Re:Fat sucks (1)

jmauro (32523) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306693)

It's limited though. Limited file sizes, limited partition sizes, limited file attributes, limited numbers of files in directories, no compression or anything like that. No journaling, etc. Those are reasons why people don't use it... performance is not one of them.

All file systems

Re:Fat sucks (1)

zatz (37585) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306845)

Simplicity is not what makes a filesystem fast. The main way to improve performance is to reduce the number and average distance of seeks, by avoiding fragmentation and storing file metadata near file contents. FAT and all its descendants are terrible at both.

Re:Fat sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306901)

OK smartass, then explain why FAT32 kicks the living shit out of other filesystems in all the benchmarks?

Re:Fat sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9310078)

Because benchmarks are not the real world. Try using FAT32 as a news server for a university. FAT32 was developed as a "single-user" filesystem, and can be very fast some many of those uses. But, if you have two processes competing for I/O, you are FUCKED!

Re:Fat sucks (2, Informative)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#9308128)

FAT32 is anything but slow. It's probably at or near the top of the list of fastest filesystems. It's so simple, how could it not be?

s/FAT32/bubble sort/

I'm afraid that I can't agree with you.

"Simplicity" doesn't mean much from a computer science standpoint (Does little code need to run? Few disk accesses required?)

One reason why FAT32 is slow is that its space allocation data structure looks something like a linked list, whereas traditional *IX filesystems look like a tree. To seek to a random point in a file on FAT32 requires O(n) time where n is the filesize. To do the same on *IX filesystems requires O(log(n)) time. A linked list is a poor data structure for position-based seeking because it doesn't take significant advantage of the fact that blocks can be pre-ordered by position.

Re:Fat sucks (1)

decepty (662114) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306467)

Yeah, and the day I take a recomendation from Microsoft will be the day... well, actually, uhm... never.

Re:Fat sucks (1)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306794)

They also recommend upgrading to XP over 2000, but I laugh at them from afar.

Seriously, don't listen to Microsoft. They want you to upgrade for their own reasons, not necessarily because it's the best thing for you. NTFS has some serious advantages over FAT32, security, namely, but FAT32 was never intended to be a secured FS. In the case of the poster, it may be exactly what he wants.

--trb

Re:Fat sucks (1)

lpq (583377) | more than 10 years ago | (#9308268)

Well NTFS also has it's "sucking" points as in "sucking performance". More than one disk read/write test (Sandra, and one used by Magix) has shown my NTFS partition on the same physical hard disk to be 1/4th (that's 25%) of the speed of my FAT32 partition.

Both partitions were formatted using WinXP defaults, FAT32 at 16k segment size, and NTFS at a 1K segment size. NTFS has 86% free space, FAT32 has 38% free space. Both are defragmented and the results were duplicated on multiple hard disk drives, two at 5400RPM and one at 7200RPM. The best I could get out of a NTFS drive was "only" a 66% performance hit (that's 1/3rd the speed of
FAT32), sized at same size and place on same disk, successive tests).

NTFS may be more reliable, but on Win2000 and WinXP, I submit that unplanned shutdowns are less frequent and only rarely do I have to run a chkdsk on bootup because a FAT32 partition wasn't unmounted cleanly.

It's not like in linux where the difference between ext2 and journaled filesystems 50-60% depending on the ops and the journaled FS's.

I was distinctly unimpressed. Of course your Mileage may vary.

-l

Re:Fat sucks (1)

DA-MAN (17442) | more than 10 years ago | (#9309229)

NTFS may be more reliable, but on Win2000 and WinXP, I submit that unplanned shutdowns are less frequent and only rarely do I have to run a chkdsk on bootup because a FAT32 partition wasn't unmounted cleanly.

NTFS is not just more reliable, but it also has security on the filesystem. Remember with FAT32, all you can do is file sharing permissions. If someone logs in locally they have full control over the entire file system. NTFS by default is the same way, but can be locked down.

Re:Fat sucks (1)

Earlybird (56426) | more than 10 years ago | (#9309807)

  • Well NTFS also has it's "sucking" points as in "sucking performance". More than one disk read/write test (Sandra, and one used by Magix) has shown my NTFS partition on the same physical hard disk to be 1/4th (that's 25%) of the speed of my FAT32 partition.
You may want to turn off "last access" timestamping. It's a registry setting [windowsnetworking.com] , and at least on NT 4.0 and Windows 2000, it is enabled by default; the equivalent option in Linux is the "noatime" mount option.

Also, NTFS is sensitive to fragmentation. Periodically defragmenting the file system -- including the MFT -- is highly recommended.

Re:Fat sucks (3, Informative)

cookd (72933) | more than 10 years ago | (#9309840)

Couple of things to check.

First, it sounds like you have two different partitions on the same hard drive. That's a no-no for benchmarks. The first partition (the one at the outer edge of the disk) will always have much better performance than the second partition (the one closer to the middle). The disk spins at a constant RPM, but the outer cylinders have more tracks on them, so you get more data per revolution.

Second, the 1k default "segment" size for NTFS (cluster, methinks) only kicks in for fairly small disks. It is an explicit tradeoff between throughput and space efficiency. By using 1k clusters, you get a lower proportion of wasted space, but you have to spend more effort tracking down all of the additional clusters. With 16k clusters, you get a higher transfer rate at the cost of more space wasted per file. With a sufficiently larget disk, NTFS defaults to 4k clusters, which is a good default for most people. NTFS performance doesn't increase much after 4k for the average workload, and due to "resident" data streams, this doesn't waste much disk space either.

In any case, my experience has been that the performance difference between NTFS and FAT (which has never seemed to be very much) is way less significant than the reliability and extra features offered.

Re:Fat sucks (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 10 years ago | (#9311183)

Both partitions were formatted using WinXP defaults, FAT32 at 16k segment size, and NTFS at a 1K segment size.

Just that difference in cluster size will make a massive difference, depending on what the benchmark does.

ext2 (3, Informative)

nocomment (239368) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306344)

http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/showthread.p hp?t=693

Re:ext2 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9310952)

Erhm, cut to the chase:

http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/explore2fs. htm [swin.edu.au]

Re:ext2 (1)

Trepalium (109107) | more than 10 years ago | (#9311018)

I prefer ext2fsd for this purpose. If you need to view a file, there's no need to copy it. I wouldn't try enabling write support, and if you use ext3, you can't anyway.

http://sys.xiloo.com/

Reiserfs under windows (2, Informative)

I_am_Rambi (536614) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306430)

looks like it may be alittle old, but it may work

Reiserfs under windows [sssup.it]

May work? (4, Informative)

samjam (256347) | more than 10 years ago | (#9307804)

May work!!
Its read-only, command-line access!
You type commands like this:

extdump \\.\PHYSICALDRIVE1 -o 68b3cb000 /etc/nsswitch.conf

If you want to read a file.

Sam

Re:May work? (2, Funny)

0x20 (546659) | more than 10 years ago | (#9309088)

back in my day, that's how we did things! and we liked it!

Give me a break... (0, Troll)

nuggetman (242645) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306440)

but I don't like the idea of running Windows code on my Linux box

How does plugging the drive in mean reading Windows code? If you're refering to the ntfs.sys file used by Captive, then just don't use captive and live with not writing NTFS.

In fact, I don't want my data stored on a proprietary, closed filesystem

In fact, what the hell does it matter? Seriously. Nobody wants to steal your DV files unless you work for Pixar, so you don't need to uber encrypt them 300 times over using PGP, GPG, PPG, GGP, GNUPG, PGGNU, and GPGNU. Accessibility is hardly an issue - you can find an XP or 2000 install CD almost anywhere online, or even bring it to a friends house and hook it in to his box. Not to mention you stated Linux and OS X can read NTFS. You're never going to have a problem w/ getting at your data stored on an NTFS partition.

I hate people who complain about things just because they're proprietary. Nobody is forcing you to use NTFS either, Win XP supports FAT 32 file systems and so do Linux and Mac.

Re:Give me a break... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9307033)

Gah! I cannot stand posts like this. Did you even read his question. It does not matter if you are ok with ntfs, he asked about alternatives.
Since he already stated he can read ntfs, just perhaps he would like to write to it. And nobody ever mentioned mega encription, although what could it hurt.
I respect the guy for trying to use an open filesystem. Just to finish up this post, I hate people who complain about people complaining, when they never complained. He asked a question and for advice. Relax

Re:Give me a break... (1)

program21 (469995) | more than 10 years ago | (#9307124)

Sure, Windows 2000/XP support FAT32, but the maximum size for a file on a FAT32 filesystem is 4GB. The OP said that he was working with files bigger than that, which can't be stored on an FAT32 file system.

Re:Give me a break... (3, Interesting)

lscoughlin (71054) | more than 10 years ago | (#9307363)

1) You don't know that he doesn't work for pixar, or that his work is not of value. Insulting his needs is not an answer to the question, it's the bitter bitching of a troll.

2) The poster, as you so unusefully point out, is aware of read access under Mac OS X and Linux, and is perfectly aware that he doesn't have an _access_ problem per se. He does, however, have an _access_ problem in that he can only write from one side. If he needs to write from the other he needs to move the files off box.

3) Apparently you're reading things the rest of us aren't. The poster is not complaining about things just because they're proprietary. What he is asking is if there is a way to do what he wants to do. You fail miserably to even address his issue in your brief rant.

To the moderator or called you 'insightful'. Stop smoking crack, it makes you feed the trolls.

-T

Suck my Karma Bonus.

Why doesn't somebody write one? (2, Interesting)

x00101010x (631764) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306509)

I was actually thinking about this a few days ago. There's lots of work out there getting linux to run windows drivers, but I haven't seen much work on writing windows drivers for posix (*nix, whatever) stuff.

A while ago I downloaded the Windows DDK from Microsoft for something, but I didn't end up using it, uninstalled it and now I can't find the download. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem avail. for free from Microsoft's site anymore either (Microsoft WHDC DDK page [microsoft.com] ). I have work to do, but this page seems like it might be of some help: OSROnline.com [osronline.com] ... maybe.

Anyways, the idea still stands, why aren't there win32 branches of open source file system drivers? Of course, I know squat about writing drivers, especially filesystem drivers, so there may be a damn good reason why not. But figured I'd throw it out anywho.

Re:Why doesn't somebody write one? (2, Insightful)

x00101010x (631764) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306586)

Of course, in the time it took me to write this people posted some nice comments on ISO9660, UFS and a possible RieserFS driver for windows. Oh well, still be nice to see it as a more standard thing. Better to "infect" windows with opensource code than open source systems with MS code (the write access setup using ntfs.sys).

Re:Why doesn't somebody write one? (0, Troll)

kabocox (199019) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306722)

Why aren't there win32 branches of open source file system drivers?

Oh, that's easy. It would improve Windows. We can't have open source code used to improve Windows. Why? Because that is just religiously wrong.

Really you have something there, but on /. you won't hear anything postive about writing open source drivers to improve any MS product. You'll hear complaints that MS should do all that work to fix their OS for free.

Re:Why doesn't somebody write one? (2, Informative)

BCoates (512464) | more than 10 years ago | (#9307919)

The DDK is for hardware drivers and a few other things, but not for filesystem drivers. For that you need the IFS kit [microsoft.com] , $899 + s/h. Last I heard it consists of a header file(ntifs.h) and an example driver.

You can get a GPLed reimplementation of ntifs.h here [acc.umu.se] , it apparently works but i've never tried it myself. There's several example drivers there, and links to some attempts at Ext2 filesystem drivers for NT.

Re:Why doesn't somebody write one? (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#9307932)

IIRC, the DDK is not freely available and redistributable (IMHO, a pretty awful thing for an OS vendor to do).

Also, writing Windows device drivers is -- how do I put this -- not very much *fun*. It's *hard*, extremely labor-intensive, there is not equivalent to Linux's "merge into the mainstream kernel" which means that people avoid breaking your code with their own feature additions, since Microsoft isn't going to take your code.

Finally, I can't think of all that many problems with NTFS. The main problem is that Linux can't read it -- but honestly, computers are so cheap these days (A friend just threw out a Duron 700 machine the other day) that it's easier to just have a Linux box and a Windows box than try dual-booting.

I guess hassling with removable drives is a bit of a pain in the ass.

Re:Why doesn't somebody write one? (5, Informative)

petard (117521) | more than 10 years ago | (#9309741)

Many reasons:

1. The officially-sanctioned IFS developer kit is separate from the DDK and costs ~$1000 last time I checked. That's steep for someone who's hacking on open source in their spare time. Even if you get it, AIUI, it's very underdocumented and you'll take quite a few lumps before producing anything useful. And the license looks to my (untrained) eye as if it specifically prohibits distributing source code for the file system drivers you develop.

2. Windows filesystem drivers are hard. Developing and debugging is hairy and time consuming, and it's a good bit more work than writing an equivalent UNIX-like filesystem driver. For example, Windows expects the filesystem to handle globbing (wildcards), which is normally handled by the shell on UNIX.

3. Kernel drivers require specialized knowledge to develop and maintain. The people who have acquired this knowledge about the popular Free/Open Source drivers are, naturally, UNIX experts. They are unlikely to have the same knowledge about developing Windows kernel drivers and very unlikely to enjoy working with Windows enough to gain this knowledge in their spare time, at their own expense.

4. People who understand windows kernel driver (especially IFS) development don't, as a group, do open source. I have a few friends who do this, and they have actually mentioned that they view open source as a threat to their livelihoods and hope it goes away. One of them used the phrase "commie bullshit". I'm not joking.

5. The free kits for Windows filesystem development appear primarily targeted at academic use, and are not robust enough (or maybe simply not well-enough understood) to produce a production-quality filesystem. Some development would most likely need to go into one of the kits before it could be used to port a non-trivial filesystem with all of the expected features.

This all adds up to a serious lack of any "somebody" who can and is willing to write one, especially for free.

That said, there are a couple of free ext2/3 implementations available for various versions of windows. I've tested them, and the one that was read/write didn't seem good enough for use with any important data.

One company that I know of has developed a commercial implementation of ext2/3fs for Windows. It's not free, but for <$30 it may be inexpensive enough to be interesting [partition-manager.com] .

google helps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306674)

when i have questions...have you ever tried google?<br><br>

<a href="http://www.tuningsoft.com/projects/projects. htm#ext2fsd">http://www.tuningsoft.com/projects/pr ojects.htm#ext2fsd</a>

Waaaaaah (1, Insightful)

delus10n0 (524126) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306740)

but I don't like the idea of running Windows code on my Linux box. In fact, I don't want my data stored on a proprietary, closed filesystem.

And this is why you will die very lonely.

Seriously though, what does it matter? You want files over 4 gig in Windows? You pretty much have to use NTFS. Deal with it.

Re:Waaaaaah (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9306918)

When I stick my foot up your ass you'll have to deal with it too!

Moron.

Re:Waaaaaah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9307072)

He asked for advice. He is not forcing you to change. HE ASKED FOR ADVICE!!! What is wrong with people. To paraphrase (I'm sure) somebody "Everybody just chill out!"

Re:Waaaaaah (1)

delus10n0 (524126) | more than 10 years ago | (#9308053)

My advice is to use NTFS. It's:

1) Built into Windows, supported by Linux/etc.

2) Much better than FAT(32); in stability, large file size handling, security, etc.

3) Difficult (if not impossible?) to use any other file system type in Windows, other than FAT32/NTFS. See reason #1.

If you ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer.

Good question (1)

molnarcs (675885) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306830)

That's exactly what I've been pondering: a good cross platform filesystem. Not that fat32 isn't good, but the 2GB filelimit makes dumps a hassle.

Currently ext2 might be an alternative. There are two open source drivers, both quite buggy. There is also a commercial solution, which produces strange things. It worked for a while, then writing under (2k) makes double double sized - so it becomes full pretty quickly, unless you switch back and forth to do an fsck (which will repair, I mean correct the size without data damage).

It is a pity there is little interest in writing a good ext2 driver for windows - I think some of us would make good use of it, for good (and fast) data storage.

BTW, I don't use the commercial solution, its on my friends puter, and as I said, it worked fine for a while - and we don't know what caused it to register double sizes for data. It might be a windows thing, otherwise it worked perfectly (read-write). Name for commercial driver is Paragon ext2fs anywhere, or something like that (try google).

Don't use Windows (4, Insightful)

sethadam1 (530629) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306897)

In fact, I don't want my data stored on a proprietary, closed filesystem.

Hmm, then maybe don't use Windows?! Seriously, why complain about the file system in particular when the entire OS is closed source. It's one thing to say "I only use OSS," but it's another to say "I don't mind closed source software, except for on this one part - there it's bad."

Windows is optimized for NTFS now, and NTFS is good. If you don't want propritary stuff, don't use Windows, period.

Re:Don't use Windows (1)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9310592)

He said he uses linux most of the time so I'm sure he uses windows when he needs to. He's probably got some application that he can't use in linux.

If you're post was to mean "stop bitching and use NTFS" then I agree with you. This necessity for open source gets annoying sometimes when it comes to something like a file system. What actual limitations is he going to incure using NTFS that he wouldn't incure while using an open fs in windows using add-ons to support it? I think this guy's just being difficult.

If you're post was to mean "you should stop using windows because it's bad" then that's pretty near sighted since people use windows because they have to for reasons they can't control. I think you meant the former so I don't mean any insults.

My opinion? I use fat32 to exchange files between windows and linux. I could use NTFS, but I haven't read up on linux's recent NTFS support so I haven't been able to make the decision. I would prefer to use NTFS if it's faster in windows and linux, but right now, "if it ain't broke then don't fix it" seems to be work fine.

Don't use Windows . . . Natively (1)

jhoffoss (73895) | more than 10 years ago | (#9311031)

Use VMWare if possible. Then you can use SMB in your NAT'd LAN on your Linux host to store your data, and your Windows VM just mounts that share to read and write data. Relatively near native access times, realistically speaking. Of course, I don't work with 4GB+ video files, so YMMV, but I'm guessing your box[en] are more than fast enough to perform decently when you're forced to use Windows.

This is what I do.

exploring ext2/3 from windows (2, Informative)

Intrigued (757997) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306932)

This doesn't replace the file system on your windows(proprietary generic term) box but it does allow you to browse ext2/3 file structures and may provide you a sufficient alternative.

Explore ex2fs [swin.edu.au]

Reiser? (5, Insightful)

atomic-penguin (100835) | more than 10 years ago | (#9306960)

I'd love to have ReiserFS running on my XP box, for example.

Reiser is not really appropriate here, because you want a filesystem for "large" files. Reiser's strength and efficiency is in large numbers of small files.

Re:Reiser? (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#9307872)

Mmm...I dunno if I'd go that far.

Really, ext2, ext3, reiser, jfs, and xfs are all pretty much general-purpose filesystems. Yes, they all have particular areas in which they perform somewhat better than the others, but it's really not worth ripping your hair out over. I'd be more likely to choose something based on the few features that differentiate them (ext2 is forwards-compatible with ext3, or that reiser can optionally give up some speed to store small files more compactly).

No (4, Informative)

Earlybird (56426) | more than 10 years ago | (#9307453)

  • Am I condemned to stay with NTFS?
Yes, as long as you want stability and consistenty (as in error recovery, such as provided by metadata journaling), you are.

Windows supports FAT32 and ISO9660 out of the box. FAT32 does not provide enough error recovery to be recommendable. People using ISO9660 as a hard-drive file system are crazy masochists -- enough said. There are seemingly abandoned ports of Ext2 and ReiserFS out there. None of them are in any sense stable for production use.

Why aren't there more file systems available on Windows? The first clue is that Windows is not an open-source platform; open-source hackers tend to live on open-source platforms. The people who work on kernel-level development under Windows are likely to be pursuing commercial software from the outset.

Furthermore, Windows kernel development is something of a black art; it is hard enough that you need to have some vested interest in the platform in order to stay; you would want to live and breathe Windows kernel APIs. (APIs, incidentally, that don't seem constructed for use by humans; for example, due to the limited size of the kernel addressing space, there are several different "kinds" of memory you must carefully allocate and manage yourself. Add to this the awkwardness involved in debugging this stuff, the poor kernel-level development tools offered by Microsoft, the limited documentation, the fact that much third-party information is non-gratis, and of course that the kernel sources themselves are closed, and you have one painful hobby.) In short, you would want to become a kernel specialist.

These painfully-accrued skills are worth their weight in gold, and used to leverage careers as highly-paid consultants [winternals.com] or highly-paid trainers [azius.com] , or both [osr.com] . And some, of course, are driver writers for hardware companies.

There's a further reason: Linux file system drivers, in my experience, are designed to be, well, Linux file system drivers. Witness the amount of effort taken by IBM and SGI to port their proprietary journaling file systems to Linux -- and this was from one Unix-like kernel to another. Windows' internal file-system driver API is completely different from Linux'. Porting one file system not only requires a lot of knowledge about the different kernel APIs, but also about the file system itself, because most likely the file-system code is not cleanly separated from the kernel-specific code; you can't just sit down and write an adapter layer. (This is actually mostly speculation, but based on casual perusal of some existing driver code.)

There will be viable, open-source file systems on Windows the day somebody takes the time and effort do implement (and maintain) one. As for myself, I bought the book [amazon.com] and started; I gave up not because it was technically challenging, but because it was no fun, and there were more interesting knowledge out there that I wanted to store in my brain.

Re:No (1)

BCoates (512464) | more than 10 years ago | (#9307785)

The vulture book is almost impossible to find in libraries, too.

Re:No (1)

Earlybird (56426) | more than 10 years ago | (#9308550)

Indeed. Seeing it being sold on Amazon and elsewhere for $300, I'm tempted to sell my own copy!

Probably not (3, Interesting)

Mattcelt (454751) | more than 10 years ago | (#9307680)

Really, the issue is getting Windows to mount a drive which is not FAT/FAT32/ISO9660/NTFS. In order for an OS to mount a filesystem, there must be logic coded into the OS which will allow it to parse the file allocation tables and other information (journaling, etc.) and read and write files from/to the disk in that format. To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft has never supported any FS other than its own for HDD usage.

Fortunately for you, MS does have a filesystem-abstraction mechanism known as SMB, which several projects (most notably the SAMBA project) have implemented. These systems communicate with Windows via SMB, presenting information to the OS with parameters it understands. By proxy, then, the MS OS doesn't care a whit about what back end FS it's writing to - as far as it's concerned, it's just like any other MS OS via the network.

So probably the best solution is to have a network-mounted drive connected via a high-speed link (gigabit ethernet, etc.) on a linux box running SMB. If you do it right, you should hopefully have enough bandwidth to do your video and have it hosted wherever you like.

Good luck!

Re:Probably not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9308177)

SORRY!!!!

meant to mod the post below you :-(

metamods do your stuff...

Re:Probably not (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 10 years ago | (#9309102)

I think that's good advice.

Does anyone know how or if it is even possible to hook up two computers (one Win2kserver, on linux (debian preferred)) with firewire800 via pci cards and have SMB shares on linux _and_ windows?

Does anyone have any idea about the throughput of such solutions?

Re:Probably not (4, Informative)

Foolhardy (664051) | more than 10 years ago | (#9310097)

Windows already has a local filesystem abstraction layer. File systems have drivers, like any device. NTFS (or any other fs) is not integrated in the kernel.
cdfs.sys for CDFS
fastfat.sys for FAT12/16/32
mrxdav.sys for WebDav (access files over http using normal file ops)
mrxsmb.sys for SMB
msfs.sys for mailslots (the mailslot filesystem)
mup.sys- the multiple UNC provider driver; to handle \\computername\share\path
npfs.sys for named pipes (the named pipe filesystem)
ntfs.sys for NTFS
udfs.sys for UDFS
Windows certainly supports third-party file system drivers. The problem is that the Microsoft IFS [microsoft.com] (installable filesystem) kit costs $899. There is a free/open alternative here [acc.umu.se] .
However, in practice, there are no alternatives to MS filesystems. Your suggestion of a SMB server over a fast connection is a good one.

Re:Probably not (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 10 years ago | (#9310181)

Hmm.. I guess it might be easier to write a userspace app which used *ix filesystem code to read the filesystem directly from Win32's idea of a block device and provide an SMB/NFS interface to it... Network filesystems (especially NFS, which is meant to be very simple on the server side) have always struck me as something you could use to provide a nice system neutral filesystem to just about anything; even CVS/SVN. Using the same idea to access a real filesystem.. that'd even be handy just on the *ix side, potentially giving BSD's Reiser/XFS/etc support without having to worry about the kernel side of things.

hey you got it! (2, Interesting)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 10 years ago | (#9311127)

If you were to run the "windows" [Culinux?] version of Linux with a virtual network driver sort of another loopback to a mini-samba, you could use it to read/write to other linux partitions. It could even be added as a module in Cygwin. Windows simply won't see "non-windows" partitions so it shouldn't be a problem.

You might have just hit it.

The issue with wanting everthing OSS on windows is that it makes migration easier. Almost every company has 1 or 2 apps that have to be on windows...so the key is replacing one-at-a-time...mozilla here, openoffice.org there... It's a page right out of the MS playbook...cooperate with everything and quietly switch user bases. But with OSS you won't ever be FORCED to switch and pay more money!!!

This is my pet project... (1)

cookd (72933) | more than 10 years ago | (#9309582)

I don't think it is available now, but I think it would be a very useful thing to have this option available, even as a horrible hack.

On the side, I've been trying to round up information on what it takes to do this, but it sure has been a pain.

I'm not really sure why Microsoft it so tight-lipped about the IfsKit and the DDK, but my best guess is that they don't want the kind of support issues that would come with too many different kinds of file systems. I suppose they're thinking that if they make the barrier to entry sufficiently high, the only takers will be professional enough to provide a decent level of support so Microsoft doesn't have to.

For the vast majority of their customers, that is probably the right decision. But for the geeks (like me) who want to do crazy things with their computers, it sure is frustrating.

I actually work for Microsoft, so the good news is that I have access to the info. The bad news is that I probably can't open-source anything that I make with it, and that even if I could, it wouldn't be of any value (you'd have to have the IfsKit to build it...). But I'm looking into my options. My ideal would be to produce a usable interface for pluggable user-mode file systems. Performance wouldn't be great, but I think it would still be very useful. I'm pretty sure that I could release a free version (binary-only) of something would make at least a few geeks happy.

The plan is as follows: a driver provides a \\.\UMFS kernel namespace object that redirects IO requests to a user-mode service. The service has a set of registered plugins. A request for "\\.\UMFS\ReiserFS\Vol1\Hello.txt" would load the "ReiserFS" plugin and request "/Vol1/Hello.txt".

Once that is done, the rest is pretty easy. "Junctions" would allow you to make mount points into any desired branch of the UMFS tree, and the user-mode plugin interface would hopefully be reasonably simple. There could potentially be kernel-mode plugins as well, but that would be pretty far down the list of priorities.

The coolest part wouldn't be mounting ReiserFS, though. I think it would be much more interesting to implement filesystem access to other system resources -- WMI, Registry, Process/Thread table, etc.

Lot'sa other issues to worry about -- security, caching, etc. Not quite trivial. But it should be possible. Anyway, we'll see if I ever get time to implement it...

Re:This is my pet project... (1)

petard (117521) | more than 10 years ago | (#9309987)

Similar things have been done:

Might be a performance hit, IDK, but (1)

magefile (776388) | more than 10 years ago | (#9310079)

How about a Samba share? On either the 'nix or the XP box - or even on a 3rd file server of some sort? Or you could use SCP or SFTP.

Granted, I realize then you're copying stuff back and forth. But it seems to be the least buggy, most reliable solution.

Re:Might be a performance hit, IDK, but (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 10 years ago | (#9311142)

What about Lin4win? could you run the Linux-on-windows and let That access the file shares...then have that show up as some kind of virtual network share/samba device?

Re:Might be a performance hit, IDK, but (1)

magefile (776388) | more than 10 years ago | (#9311164)

Um ... you can do a samba share with NTFS. I am. No need for Lin4Win. And L4W would be a perf. hit anyway. It'd probably be better (if you couldn't do it with NTFS) to have a separate FAT32 partition and transfer stuff in and out. But that's inefficient.

If ur a zealot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9310476)

why ru using winxp at all?

Do what I do - NFS (2, Informative)

metalslug02 (559857) | more than 10 years ago | (#9310791)

I do exactly the same thing, and eventually I decided the smartest way would be to use a networked filesystem. I have my DV box with mirrored (essential in my mind) 120GB drives running Debian and sharing via NFS over a 100Mb network. You could use any operating system on that box and it wouldn't matter.

I can rip DV footage to it with no lost frames and no problems. I also do a lot of audio recording, and can record at least 12 simultaneous tracks to it.

I can access it from any computer, it's never down, I don't have to restart to get into my files, everything just works!

Your solution might be ext2 for Windows. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9310836)

Bo Branten knows his Windows IFS interface. About halfway down his projects page are a couple of links to ext2-ifs projects. Don't know if any are stable enough to use for everyday work, but it's worth a shot!

Bo Branten's Projects Page [acc.umu.se]

UDF (1)

GiMP (10923) | more than 10 years ago | (#9310980)

UDF is the Universal Disk Format. Although generally used for DVD+-RW disks, it can be used for harddisks too. All the modern operating systems support it, including Microsoft Windows (apparently since win95b).

Random Article [earthweb.com] link.

using paragon ext2fs might be a solution (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 10 years ago | (#9311453)

there's a commercial, and I believe, several free versions of "ext2fs for windows" you might wish to google for that. You would be able to share your ext2fs file system with your linux install. However, they aren't "install" options. Only fat32 fat16 and ntfs qualify as "install" options on windows operating systems, and I doubt there is a bare-metal recovery kit in existance that would allow you to "backup ntfs install", reformat to ext2fs, "restore from bare metal onto ext2fs" and voila, without blue screens galore.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?