On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Ian Turner wrote:
On Thursday 02 March 2006 12:31, you wrote:
Does UDF support a modern permissions system though? I thought it
didn't, because it was designed for optical media...
Yes. It is designed to be a superset of all common filesystems, feature-wise.
So it has
On Friday 03 March 2006 04:13, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
That sounds actually good to me...
- disk capacity is increasing a lot,
- disk transfer speeds are also increasing, but less compared to
capacity, - disk latency (seek times) is improving very slowly.
All of this is true, but the
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Frank Smith wrote:
Jon LaBadie wrote:
Some of you are undoubtedly using external hard drives
that are USB or FireWire connected. Perhaps as your
holding disk or for virtual tapes.
These drives seem to come formatted with FAT-32 file
systems. I wonder how people
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Ian Turner wrote:
On Thursday 02 March 2006 04:43, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Isn't there a file size limit with FAT32, which may bite when using it as a
holding disk or for virtual tapes?
NT refuses to create a FAT32 volume above a certain size -- my memory says
32GB.
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
I meant individual file size, not file system size.
Oh, yes, I believe there's a 2GB filesize limit on FAT32, but I could be
wrong.
On Thursday 02 March 2006 10:26, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
I meant individual file size, not file system size.
Ah. In that case, FAT32's limit is 4 GB. But that is a non-issue; you can get
around it by specifying the chunksize or tape_splitsize options for
holding-disks and vtapes,
Am 02.03.2006 um 16:29 schrieb Graeme Humphries:
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
I meant individual file size, not file system size.
Oh, yes, I believe there's a 2GB filesize limit on FAT32, but I could
be
wrong.
yes you're right, 2 GB it is.
bye
Stefan Herrmann
Ahh, foo on M$ and its progeny.
I think I'll do an ext file system.
My only concern there is migrating to other UNIX OS's.
Wish there were a reasonably universal, reasonably
featured, reasonably secure FS type other than FAT.
Well at least one of those reasonably applies to FAT.
--
Jon H.
On Thursday 02 March 2006 12:08, Jon LaBadie wrote:
Wish there were a reasonably universal, reasonably
featured, reasonably secure FS type other than FAT.
UDF?
--
Forums for Amanda discussion: http://forums.zmanda.com/
Ian Turner wrote:
On Thursday 02 March 2006 12:08, Jon LaBadie wrote:
Wish there were a reasonably universal, reasonably
featured, reasonably secure FS type other than FAT.
UDF?
Does UDF support a modern permissions system though? I thought it
didn't, because it was
On Thursday 02 March 2006 12:31, you wrote:
Does UDF support a modern permissions system though? I thought it
didn't, because it was designed for optical media...
Yes. It is designed to be a superset of all common filesystems, feature-wise.
So it has support for NT ACLs, POSIX ACLs, UNIX
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:12:25PM -0500, Ian Turner wrote:
On Thursday 02 March 2006 12:31, you wrote:
Does UDF support a modern permissions system though? I thought it
didn't, because it was designed for optical media...
Yes. It is designed to be a superset of all common filesystems,
Some of you are undoubtedly using external hard drives
that are USB or FireWire connected. Perhaps as your
holding disk or for virtual tapes.
These drives seem to come formatted with FAT-32 file
systems. I wonder how people handle them.
Do you leave your external drives as FAT-32 or do you
For me the major consideration is whether I will go back and forth
between a Linux laptop and a Windows based laptop with the same disk drive.
If it is a drive that I intend to use only with Linux, I would
absolutely go with ext3 (mostly for journalling capability). In most
cases I would
Jon LaBadie wrote:
Some of you are undoubtedly using external hard drives
that are USB or FireWire connected. Perhaps as your
holding disk or for virtual tapes.
These drives seem to come formatted with FAT-32 file
systems. I wonder how people handle them.
Do you leave your external
15 matches
Mail list logo
