Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
I see two more possibilities for such a lingua franca file system: xfs and zfs. I noticed, on http://distrowatch.com/ , that there was an update to xfsprogs package. xfsprogs is included in Linux (Slackware 13.0), and I see xfsprogs packages in NetBSD pkgsrc and freebsd ports. I saw an article in heise online that ZFS will be available for Linux: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/ZFS-als-Kernelmodul-fuer-Linux-1068695.html http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=zfs_linux_comingnum=1 (title: Native ZFS Is Coming To Linux Next Month) Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:55:21 +, Thomas Mueller mueller6...@bellsouth.net wrote: From Polytropon free...@edvax.de: There is a way around this: Put the files to be transferred into a tar archive. In this way, only the archives name will have to obey 8.3, and its content will keep intact (case sensitive long file names); the only downside is that extraction in DOS will result in 8.3 filenames again (there's TAR.EXE for DOS). Know that tar is the most universal file system. :-) I did use this approach in the past when having to fransfer files between non-networked UNIX and Linux systems via floppy disk: Simply used tar directly on the device (which's device name was of course different on all the systems). Sort of a nuisance having to archive and extract every time, I could even use gzip or bzip2 to create a .tgz or .tbz That's true. Maybe there could be some scripting solution involving a transfer directory. The main reason of tar is not about compression (which is not always even desired), but to create a container. One idea further, much more bare-bone. :-) Assume you have four slices (primary DOS partitions) on your disk. One for FreeBSD, one for Linux, one for something else, one free. You can use tar to access the 4th slice directly, again without any file system, like this: linux# tar cf /dev/hda4 transfiles/* freebsd# tar xf /dev/ad0s4 But it's really just a transfer solution, no shared storage. I've also seen enclosures for hard disks including a CIFS share management system via their network connection. A built-in browser- accessible configuration tool can be used for customization. As there is no separate software on the hard disk itself, the disk can be replaced easily (if full or defective). This would be an acceptable add-on for the PC in a one-PC-setting. I'm not familiar with this, don't know how I'd set it up. They simply act as a NFS, CIFS or FTP server within your network. Those devices usually get an address from a DHCP server (maybe just like your PC does) and can then be accessed. NFS shares can be mounted in the usual way, and FTP client programs can access the FTP deamon running inside. I haven't noticable experience with CIFS, but I think it's more complicated - but not sure, never had to deal with Windows. An option would be to avoid the file system level at all. Maybe that's not a solution to your requirements, but let me mention this: In a interoperability environment, I did use a disk enclosure with built-in FTP server. In this way, all OSes can r/w access its content via FTP. There are no limits regarding 8.3 filenames. Even MacOS X runs well in such a setting. The downside, of course, is that you have to run a FTP session for every transfer (instead of just mounting a disk's partition), but it's basically no problem to use a kind of FTP-backed file system, I think I have seen this in some KDE or Gnome... I'm not familiar with this and wouldn't know how to set this up. Check disk enclosures on http://www.compusa.com/ ? The Sabrent models seem to be something like I was talking about. Network connection is important, or else it would just be an external hard disk (connected by eSATA or USB). From Christer Solstrand Johannessen chris...@csj.no: I've successfully used CIFS/Samba and NFS between Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris and Windows for years. Easy to set up and works well. If there are no Windows clients involved, I'd use NFS or AFS; with Windows in the mix, CIFS/Samba may be a better choice as Windows NFS clients are dodgy at best. Can this be done all within one computer, or do I need a second computer? Second computer, or maybe through some virtualisation solution (e. g. a Linux running in a VM on FreeBSD, exposing NFS mounts to the host OS). There would be the need for the same VM on every other OS you use. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
From Samuel Martín Moro faus...@gmail.com: the problem is not which version of mkfs (ext2fs) you use. the problem is that BSD only handle ext2fs partitions with 128b inodes, while default value is 256. when running mkfs/newfs, be sure to specify -I 128 also, I won't recommand ntfs. but, ntfs works correctly under BSD and Linux. so, if you just want the partition to be read/writeable on both BSD and Linux, and don't wan't to use 128b inodes, nor ext2, you may wanna consider using fat (except the file size limit thing, it works great), or ntfs (quite ugly, but still working) This (mkfs/newfs for ext2fs) might be worth trying, at least on a partition where Linux is not installed. I could also try ntfs on an experimental basis. Between Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD, I wouldn't have to worry about being compatible with Microsoft's latest version of ntfs. From Polytropon free...@edvax.de: There is a way around this: Put the files to be transferred into a tar archive. In this way, only the archives name will have to obey 8.3, and its content will keep intact (case sensitive long file names); the only downside is that extraction in DOS will result in 8.3 filenames again (there's TAR.EXE for DOS). Know that tar is the most universal file system. :-) I did use this approach in the past when having to fransfer files between non-networked UNIX and Linux systems via floppy disk: Simply used tar directly on the device (which's device name was of course different on all the systems). Sort of a nuisance having to archive and extract every time, I could even use gzip or bzip2 to create a .tgz or .tbz But FreeDOS, using the file software imported from Unix (ls and other) will show long file names on FAT32 or even a CD. I've also seen enclosures for hard disks including a CIFS share management system via their network connection. A built-in browser- accessible configuration tool can be used for customization. As there is no separate software on the hard disk itself, the disk can be replaced easily (if full or defective). This would be an acceptable add-on for the PC in a one-PC-setting. I'm not familiar with this, don't know how I'd set it up. An option would be to avoid the file system level at all. Maybe that's not a solution to your requirements, but let me mention this: In a interoperability environment, I did use a disk enclosure with built-in FTP server. In this way, all OSes can r/w access its content via FTP. There are no limits regarding 8.3 filenames. Even MacOS X runs well in such a setting. The downside, of course, is that you have to run a FTP session for every transfer (instead of just mounting a disk's partition), but it's basically no problem to use a kind of FTP-backed file system, I think I have seen this in some KDE or Gnome... I'm not familiar with this and wouldn't know how to set this up. Check disk enclosures on http://www.compusa.com/ ? From Christer Solstrand Johannessen chris...@csj.no: I've successfully used CIFS/Samba and NFS between Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris and Windows for years. Easy to set up and works well. If there are no Windows clients involved, I'd use NFS or AFS; with Windows in the mix, CIFS/Samba may be a better choice as Windows NFS clients are dodgy at best. Can this be done all within one computer, or do I need a second computer? From Andy Ruhl acr...@gmail.com: I thought UDF was supposed to be the solution to all of this. A friend of mine had a USB external hard disk formatted with UDF and it worked fine with both Linux and Windows. I think it's not as common for formatting magnetic disk based filesystems as it probably should be though. It's mostly used for DVDs. I've heard of UDF, recognized it as a file system for DVDs, can't find it specifically on my system but find two DVD-related packages. /var/log/packages/dvd+rw-tools-7.1-i486-1 /var/log/packages/libdvdread-4.1.3-i486-1 From Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk: I've not tried it recently, but I think UFS (both UFS1 and UFS2 seem to be supported) should work well; since 2.6.29 Linux has supported writing to UFS too; you may need to recompile the kernel to add support for writing depending on how old the kernel is, but http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/filesystems/ufs.txt;h=7a602adeca2b7399f04b50232c838a9aec305712;hb=HEAD says simply that ufs2 has read-write support. I see, I could use ufstype=44bsd. I've read a NetBSD partition that way from Linux but wasnn't sufficiently daring to attempt to write to it. I could try it on an experimental basis, on a partition where NetBSD or FreeBSD is not installed. Do something like newfs /dev/ad0s8? Thanks to all for the helpful suggestions! Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to
Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:55:21 + Thomas Mueller mueller6...@bellsouth.net articulated: If there are no Windows clients involved, I'd use NFS or AFS; with Windows in the mix, CIFS/Samba may be a better choice as Windows NFS clients are dodgy at best. That is not necessarily true anymore. I found this link: http://sagehacks.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/howto-mount-nfs-shares-under-windows-7/ I will be trying it myself in another week on a test machine I am setting up. -- Jerry ✌ freebsd.u...@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
2010/8/25 Thomas Mueller mueller6...@bellsouth.net: From Andy Ruhl acr...@gmail.com: I thought UDF was supposed to be the solution to all of this. A friend of mine had a USB external hard disk formatted with UDF and it worked fine with both Linux and Windows. I think it's not as common for formatting magnetic disk based filesystems as it probably should be though. It's mostly used for DVDs. I've heard of UDF, recognized it as a file system for DVDs, can't find it specifically on my system but find two DVD-related packages. /var/log/packages/dvd+rw-tools-7.1-i486-1 /var/log/packages/libdvdread-4.1.3-i486-1 $ uname NetBSD $ which newfs_udf /sbin/newfs_udf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDF_File_System It appears that NetBSD, Mac OSX, Linux (later 2.6) and Windows (later versions) support it the best. FreeBSD and OpenBSD, AIX and Solaris claim some level of support for it as well. Unless you're using FAT32 or a network CIFS, it appears to be the best supported filesystem to me, given that you are using the proper version of UDF. I'm guessing a Windows partition layout would be most compatible as well on a magnetic disk. Also note that UDF claims to be able to write and rewrite files directly to RW optical media. I've never used it much in practice though. Andy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
What is the best choice for a file system that can be read, and safely written to, by Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD? With NetBSD through 5.1_RC3, I got unsupported inode size when trying to mount Linux ext2fs partition from NetBSD. With FreeBSD through 7.2, I could mount, but got Bad file descriptor when trying to access the Linux partition. With FreeBSD 8.0, I could mount and read the Linux partition, but in the only attempt to write to the ext2fs partition, I was editing a file with vi, and when I tried to write (save), the file was truncated. I was able to recover by saving to FreeBSD file system and copying to msdos (FAT32) partition and subsequently copying to the Linux partition (this was a nonbootable USB stick used for data rather than Linux installation). I haven't tried under FreeBSD 8.1 yet. Would I have better luck using newfs_ext2fs from NetBSD or FreeBSD and possibly getting a flavor of ext2fs more to BSD's liking? This would be for data as opposed to Linux installation. There is the obvious possibility of using msdos (FAT32); I could run FreeDOS on such a partition as well as using the partition to share data between Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD, and FreeDOS too. Drawback is some problems getting long file names straight, and lack of case sensitivity. But maybe FAT32 is the safest choice? Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD are supposed to be able to read and write NTFS partition, but I see from a very recent thread on this list, subject Re: External HD, that writing to NTFS partition is very dangerous, and I figure that would be also true for NetBSD and Linux, and any other non-MS-Windows-NT-line OS that might have support for NTFS. There is also the caveat that such a data-sharing partition would have to be in a primary or extended/logical slice/partition, since Linux seems unable to read BSD disklabels, and NetBSD and FreeBSD can't read each other's disklabels. Also, Linux and the BSDs go separate ways with some newer file systems (ext4fs, btrfs, jfs in Linux; zfs in FreeBSD). Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
the problem is not which version of mkfs (ext2fs) you use.
the problem is that BSD only handle ext2fs partitions with 128b inodes,
while default value is 256.
when running mkfs/newfs, be sure to specify -I 128
also, I won't recommand ntfs.
but, ntfs works correctly under BSD and Linux.
so, if you just want the partition to be read/writeable on both BSD and
Linux, and don't wan't to use 128b inodes, nor ext2, you may wanna consider
using fat (except the file size limit thing, it works great), or ntfs (quite
ugly, but still working)
Samuel Martín Moro
{EPITECH.} tek4
CamTrace S.A.S
(+033) 1 41 38 37 60
1 Allée de la Venelle
92150 Suresnes
FRANCE
Nobody wants to say how this works.
Maybe nobody knows ...
Xorg.conf(5)
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Thomas Mueller
mueller6...@bellsouth.netwrote:
What is the best choice for a file system that can be read, and safely
written to, by Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD?
With NetBSD through 5.1_RC3, I got unsupported inode size when trying to
mount Linux ext2fs partition from NetBSD.
With FreeBSD through 7.2, I could mount, but got Bad file descriptor when
trying to access the Linux partition. With FreeBSD 8.0, I could mount and
read the Linux partition, but in the only attempt to write to the ext2fs
partition, I was editing a file with vi, and when I tried to write (save),
the file was truncated. I was able to recover by saving to FreeBSD file
system and copying to msdos (FAT32) partition and subsequently copying to
the Linux partition (this was a nonbootable USB stick used for data rather
than Linux installation). I haven't tried under FreeBSD 8.1 yet.
Would I have better luck using newfs_ext2fs from NetBSD or FreeBSD and
possibly getting a flavor of ext2fs more to BSD's liking? This would be for
data as opposed to Linux installation.
There is the obvious possibility of using msdos (FAT32); I could run
FreeDOS on such a partition as well as using the partition to share data
between Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD, and FreeDOS too. Drawback is some
problems getting long file names straight, and lack of case sensitivity.
But maybe FAT32 is the safest choice?
Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD are supposed to be able to read and write NTFS
partition, but I see from a very recent thread on this list, subject Re:
External HD, that writing to NTFS partition is very dangerous, and I figure
that would be also true for NetBSD and Linux, and any other
non-MS-Windows-NT-line OS that might have support for NTFS.
There is also the caveat that such a data-sharing partition would have to
be in a primary or extended/logical slice/partition, since Linux seems
unable to read BSD disklabels, and NetBSD and FreeBSD can't read each
other's disklabels. Also, Linux and the BSDs go separate ways with some
newer file systems (ext4fs, btrfs, jfs in Linux; zfs in FreeBSD).
Tom
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:53:09 +, Thomas Mueller mueller6...@bellsouth.net wrote: There is the obvious possibility of using msdos (FAT32); I could run FreeDOS on such a partition as well as using the partition to share data between Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD, and FreeDOS too. Drawback is some problems getting long file names straight, and lack of case sensitivity. But maybe FAT32 is the safest choice? There is a way around this: Put the files to be transferred into a tar archive. In this way, only the archives name will have to obey 8.3, and its content will keep intact (case sensitive long file names); the only downside is that extraction in DOS will result in 8.3 filenames again (there's TAR.EXE for DOS). Know that tar is the most universal file system. :-) I did use this approach in the past when having to fransfer files between non-networked UNIX and Linux systems via floppy disk: Simply used tar directly on the device (which's device name was of course different on all the systems). Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD are supposed to be able to read and write NTFS partition, but I see from a very recent thread on this list, subject Re: External HD, that writing to NTFS partition is very dangerous, and I figure that would be also true for NetBSD and Linux, and any other non-MS-Windows-NT-line OS that might have support for NTFS. NTFS is known to be an unstable file system. There is also the caveat that such a data-sharing partition would have to be in a primary or extended/logical slice/partition, since Linux seems unable to read BSD disklabels, and NetBSD and FreeBSD can't read each other's disklabels. Linux and DOS do, as far as I remember, only operate on slice level. Partitioned slices (such as FreeBSD uses them) are a bit problematic. With 4 slices (so called DOS primary partitions) a disk is full. Also, Linux and the BSDs go separate ways with some newer file systems (ext4fs, btrfs, jfs in Linux; zfs in FreeBSD). An option would be to avoid the file system level at all. Maybe that's not a solution to your requirements, but let me mention this: In a interoperability environment, I did use a disk enclosure with built-in FTP server. In this way, all OSes can r/w access its content via FTP. There are no limits regarding 8.3 filenames. Even MacOS X runs well in such a setting. The downside, of course, is that you have to run a FTP session for every transfer (instead of just mounting a disk's partition), but it's basically no problem to use a kind of FTP-backed file system, I think I have seen this in some KDE or Gnome... -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
RE: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
-Original Message- From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Polytropon Sent: 24. august 2010 12:55 To: Thomas Mueller Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD? Also, Linux and the BSDs go separate ways with some newer file systems (ext4fs, btrfs, jfs in Linux; zfs in FreeBSD). An option would be to avoid the file system level at all. Maybe that's not a solution to your requirements, but let me mention this: In a interoperability environment, I did use a disk enclosure with built-in FTP server. In this way, all OSes can r/w access its content via FTP. There are no limits regarding 8.3 filenames. Even MacOS X runs well in such a setting. The downside, of course, is that you have to run a FTP session for every transfer (instead of just mounting a disk's partition), but it's basically no problem to use a kind of FTP- backed file system, I think I have seen this in some KDE or Gnome... I've successfully used CIFS/Samba and NFS between Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris and Windows for years. Easy to set up and works well. If there are no Windows clients involved, I'd use NFS or AFS; with Windows in the mix, CIFS/Samba may be a better choice as Windows NFS clients are dodgy at best. - Christer ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:09:04 -0400, Christer Solstrand Johannessen chris...@csj.no wrote: If there are no Windows clients involved, I'd use NFS or AFS; Yes, I forgot to mention NFS. Of course it works, as the support for it in UNIX, Linux, BSD and Mac OS X is sufficiently good. But it may not be a solution in a one-PC-setting. :-) with Windows in the mix, CIFS/Samba may be a better choice as Windows NFS clients are dodgy at best. I've also seen enclosures for hard disks including a CIFS share management system via their network connection. A built-in browser- accessible configuration tool can be used for customization. As there is no separate software on the hard disk itself, the disk can be replaced easily (if full or defective). This would be an acceptable add-on for the PC in a one-PC-setting. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:29:31PM +0200, Polytropon wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:09:04 -0400, Christer Solstrand Johannessen chris...@csj.no wrote: If there are no Windows clients involved, I'd use NFS or AFS; Yes, I forgot to mention NFS. Of course it works, as the support for it in UNIX, Linux, BSD and Mac OS X is sufficiently good. But it may not be a solution in a one-PC-setting. :-) with Windows in the mix, CIFS/Samba may be a better choice as Windows NFS clients are dodgy at best. I have deleted the OP, so I may not remember exactly what [s]he is looking for, but if it is just to have some common space that each OS can read/write, but not necessarily boot from eg each OS has its own bootable disk space and this is just used between then, then maybe FAT32 might do the trick. It doesn't preserve some of the UNIX ownership and permission stuff though. jerry ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
On 8/24/2010 4:53 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote: What is the best choice for a file system that can be read, and safely written to, by Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD? With NetBSD through 5.1_RC3, I got unsupported inode size when trying to mount Linux ext2fs partition from NetBSD. With FreeBSD through 7.2, I could mount, but got Bad file descriptor when trying to access the Linux partition. With FreeBSD 8.0, I could mount and read the Linux partition, but in the only attempt to write to the ext2fs partition, I was editing a file with vi, and when I tried to write (save), the file was truncated. I was able to recover by saving to FreeBSD file system and copying to msdos (FAT32) partition and subsequently copying to the Linux partition (this was a nonbootable USB stick used for data rather than Linux installation). I haven't tried under FreeBSD 8.1 yet. Would I have better luck using newfs_ext2fs from NetBSD or FreeBSD and possibly getting a flavor of ext2fs more to BSD's liking? This would be for data as opposed to Linux installation. There is the obvious possibility of using msdos (FAT32); I could run FreeDOS on such a partition as well as using the partition to share data between Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD, and FreeDOS too. Drawback is some problems getting long file names straight, and lack of case sensitivity. But maybe FAT32 is the safest choice? Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD are supposed to be able to read and write NTFS partition, but I see from a very recent thread on this list, subject Re: External HD, that writing to NTFS partition is very dangerous, and I figure that would be also true for NetBSD and Linux, and any other non-MS-Windows-NT-line OS that might have support for NTFS. There is also the caveat that such a data-sharing partition would have to be in a primary or extended/logical slice/partition, since Linux seems unable to read BSD disklabels, and NetBSD and FreeBSD can't read each other's disklabels. Also, Linux and the BSDs go separate ways with some newer file systems (ext4fs, btrfs, jfs in Linux; zfs in FreeBSD). Tom One other possibility is using UDF on the disk. It's forgotten about but I believe it's more interoperable and unix-compatible than fat32 or the rest. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:53:09 + Thomas Mueller mueller6...@bellsouth.net wrote: What is the best choice for a file system that can be read, and safely written to, by Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD? I've not tried it recently, but I think UFS (both UFS1 and UFS2 seem to be supported) should work well; since 2.6.29 Linux has supported writing to UFS too; you may need to recompile the kernel to add support for writing depending on how old the kernel is, but http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/filesystems/ufs.txt;h=7a602adeca2b7399f04b50232c838a9aec305712;hb=HEAD says simply that ufs2 has read-write support. -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
On 24 August 2010 06:53, Thomas Mueller mueller6...@bellsouth.net wrote: What is the best choice for a file system that can be read, and safely written to, by Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD? I've been trying NTFS(-3g). It's been going well, with even occasional Windows thrown in the mix. But it is very slow, mostly, I believe, due to being an userspace implementation. And I do keep backups. With NetBSD through 5.1_RC3, I got unsupported inode size when trying to mount Linux ext2fs partition from NetBSD. I've tested ext2/3 in the past, found it very risky to mix OSs (Linux and FreeBSD only, though). FreeBSD's Ext2 seemed very lacky regarding new FS features. I wouldn't risk it. There is the obvious possibility of using msdos (FAT32); I could run FreeDOS on such a partition as well as using the partition to share data between Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD, and FreeDOS too. Drawback is some problems getting long file names straight, and lack of case sensitivity. But maybe FAT32 is the safest choice? IMHO NTFS should be better, also, NTFS-3G has an (opensource friendly?) company behind it: http://www.tuxera.com/community/ntfs-3g-download/ Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD are supposed to be able to read and write NTFS partition, but I see from a very recent thread on this list, subject Re: External HD, that writing to NTFS partition is very dangerous, and I figure that would be also true for NetBSD and Linux, and any other non-MS-Windows-NT-line OS that might have support for NTFS. I haven't seen recent horror stories about NTFS use on Linux, since the userspace/fuse implementations. Haven't had any problemas myself too. Except for a hiccup: one of the implementations (can't remember which) would semi-silently ignore files/paths for which it couldn't parse the charset, that it, it didn't copy the files/dirs, also didn't error, just spit some mumbling in dmesg (this was on Linux also). So beware of your FS charset. As Joshua Isom mentioned, there's also UDF. But IIRC FreeBSD wasn't able to write on it when I checked. Also slow compared to native FSs (same league or worse than the userspace NTFSs). I'd love to go with UDF, if only it had better support/performance. And don't underestimate your backups. -- (nil) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Lingua franca file system Linux-NetBSD-FreeBSD?
On 24 August 2010 20:48, Gustavo De Nardin gustav...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 August 2010 06:53, Thomas Mueller mueller6...@bellsouth.net wrote: What is the best choice for a file system that can be read, and safely written to, by Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD? I've been trying NTFS(-3g). It's been going well, with even occasional Windows thrown in the mix. But it is very slow, mostly, I believe, due to being an userspace implementation. And I do keep backups. I thought I must correct myself: the problem is not exaclt it being slow, but rather using a lot of CPU. On non fast machines, you may easily be bound by the CPU, not I/O. With NetBSD through 5.1_RC3, I got unsupported inode size when trying to mount Linux ext2fs partition from NetBSD. I've tested ext2/3 in the past, found it very risky to mix OSs (Linux and FreeBSD only, though). FreeBSD's Ext2 seemed very lacky regarding new FS features. I wouldn't risk it. There is the obvious possibility of using msdos (FAT32); I could run FreeDOS on such a partition as well as using the partition to share data between Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD, and FreeDOS too. Drawback is some problems getting long file names straight, and lack of case sensitivity. But maybe FAT32 is the safest choice? IMHO NTFS should be better, also, NTFS-3G has an (opensource friendly?) company behind it: http://www.tuxera.com/community/ntfs-3g-download/ Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD are supposed to be able to read and write NTFS partition, but I see from a very recent thread on this list, subject Re: External HD, that writing to NTFS partition is very dangerous, and I figure that would be also true for NetBSD and Linux, and any other non-MS-Windows-NT-line OS that might have support for NTFS. I haven't seen recent horror stories about NTFS use on Linux, since the userspace/fuse implementations. Haven't had any problemas myself too. Except for a hiccup: one of the implementations (can't remember which) would semi-silently ignore files/paths for which it couldn't parse the charset, that it, it didn't copy the files/dirs, also didn't error, just spit some mumbling in dmesg (this was on Linux also). So beware of your FS charset. As Joshua Isom mentioned, there's also UDF. But IIRC FreeBSD wasn't able to write on it when I checked. Also slow compared to native FSs (same league or worse than the userspace NTFSs). I'd love to go with UDF, if only it had better support/performance. And don't underestimate your backups. -- (nil) -- (nil) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
