[gentoo-user] NTFS vs ext3

[gentoo-user] NTFS vs ext3

[Ghaith Hachem]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 630 bytes --]

hey,
i was wondering what would be the best solution for a shared data partition,
it's a 100GB partition, and FAT is not an option, so should i use ext2 (or
ext3) with one of the tools on windows? and which tool would you recommend
I'm currently using ext2fsd to read my ext2 backup harddrive i think it has
ext3 write support..
Or should i go the other way around and put my data on an NTFS partition,
and if i do that is the NTFS write support stable by now.. it's been a long
time since i dual booted so back then NTFS support was not really a good
idea..

thank you in advance

-- 
Ghaith Hachem
TristMoon Staff
TristMoon.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 673 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NTFS vs ext3

[Shawn Singh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1222 bytes --]

In ( what seems like ) similar situatoins, I've just let the partition that
I want to "share" b/w OSes just be a NTFS partition if say, I were
dual-booting my machine ( Linux & Windows ). IMHO, Linux support for NTFS is
fine, meaning that I've not experienced any trouble related to doing that.

Shawn

On 11/16/06, Ghaith Hachem <blacksadness@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hey,
> i was wondering what would be the best solution for a shared data
> partition, it's a 100GB partition, and FAT is not an option, so should i use
> ext2 (or ext3) with one of the tools on windows? and which tool would you
> recommend I'm currently using ext2fsd to read my ext2 backup harddrive i
> think it has ext3 write support..
> Or should i go the other way around and put my data on an NTFS partition,
> and if i do that is the NTFS write support stable by now.. it's been a long
> time since i dual booted so back then NTFS support was not really a good
> idea..
>
> thank you in advance
>
> --
> Ghaith Hachem
> TristMoon Staff
> TristMoon.com




-- 
"...the return which is executed immediately after the call to aretu
actually returns from the last routine which did the savu.
You are not expected to understand this."
Unix Sixth Edition

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1592 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NTFS vs ext3

[Daniel Vrcic]

* Shawn Singh <callmeshawn@gmail.com> [06-11-17 09:10]:
> In ( what seems like ) similar situatoins, I've just let the partition
> that I want to "share" b/w OSes just be a NTFS partition if say, I
> were dual-booting my machine ( Linux & Windows ). IMHO, Linux support
> for NTFS is fine, meaning that I've not experienced any trouble
> related to doing that.

You have also experienced satisfactory writing speed? You're using
ntfs-3g? 


-- 
Daniel Vrcic
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] NTFS vs ext3

[Shawn Singh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1422 bytes --]

It's been a couple years since I was in such a scenario, but I'd say that r
w speed was adequate for what I was trying to do ( access documents, music,
etc that resided on my Windows partition ).  In looking at the NTFS-3G
driver, it seems like it might be cool to try out, though I can't comment on
how "safe" or "fast" it is being that I've not used it. It's been about 2
years since I've cut completely away from Windows ( at home ), and since
that time I've gradually begun to use ReiserFS, and for stuff that I want to
share to Windows computers ( ex. my wife's computer ( running Windows ) ), I
share that content via Samba.

Shawn

On 11/18/06, Daniel Vrcic <daniel.vrcic@si.htnet.hr> wrote:
>
> * Shawn Singh <callmeshawn@gmail.com> [06-11-17 09:10]:
> > In ( what seems like ) similar situatoins, I've just let the partition
> > that I want to "share" b/w OSes just be a NTFS partition if say, I
> > were dual-booting my machine ( Linux & Windows ). IMHO, Linux support
> > for NTFS is fine, meaning that I've not experienced any trouble
> > related to doing that.
>
> You have also experienced satisfactory writing speed? You're using
> ntfs-3g?
>
>
> --
> Daniel Vrcic
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


-- 
"...the return which is executed immediately after the call to aretu
actually returns from the last routine which did the savu.
You are not expected to understand this."
Unix Sixth Edition

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1912 bytes --]