fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Stefan Farrenkop » Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:19:27



Hi all,

I am preparing the installation of a new machine and I want to make my
first real steps in the FreeBSD world :)
I plan to install Win2k and Linux (I need both of them for some
compatibility reasons) and FreeBSD (I hope this can be my future all day
Desktop system). All systems should reside on the same 80 GB disk, each
system within it's own partition and it's appropriate FS. One big data
partition should be available for them all and this is where I need your help.
I did some searches in google about the topic, but I am still not sure what
filesystem would be the best option for this data partition. Of course I
found the FAT, FAT16, FAT32 option, but what I miss is a filesystem which
is able to use all the features of a real unix filesystem, but can be
accessed from win2k. I do not like the idea that FAT32 is not able to deal
with permissions, journaling, etc. Is there a better solution?
If I use FAT or FAT16 I am not able to use long filenames, so FAT32 would
be the best choice out of these. Are there any issues against FAT32
regarding it's stability or security?

thanks for your help
STefan

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by John Nielse » Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:53:23



> Hi all,

> I am preparing the installation of a new machine and I want to make my
> first real steps in the FreeBSD world :)
> I plan to install Win2k and Linux (I need both of them for some
> compatibility reasons) and FreeBSD (I hope this can be my future all day
> Desktop system). All systems should reside on the same 80 GB disk, each
> system within it's own partition and it's appropriate FS. One big data
> partition should be available for them all and this is where I need your
> help. I did some searches in google about the topic, but I am still not
> sure what filesystem would be the best option for this data partition. Of
> course I found the FAT, FAT16, FAT32 option, but what I miss is a
> filesystem which is able to use all the features of a real unix
> filesystem, but can be accessed from win2k. I do not like the idea that
> FAT32 is not able to deal with permissions, journaling, etc. Is there a
> better solution? If I use FAT or FAT16 I am not able to use long
> filenames, so FAT32 would be the best choice out of these. Are there any
> issues against FAT32 regarding it's stability or security?

The solution I found was to put my big hard drive in a FreeBSD-only
fileserver and access it over the network.  My main machine can access it
whether I'm in Windows (Samba) or FreeBSD (NFS), and I can put stuff on it
for my Mac (netatalk) as well.

Barring that, though, FAT32 is probably the way to go.  You can't do
permissions, symlinks, or other unix-y stuff on it, but it's well-supported
in all three of your target platforms.  FAT32 access is quite stable in
FreeBSD (using mount -t msdos).  And it's as secure as the rest of your
system is.  All files in the FAT32 partition will inherit the ownership and
access privileges of the mountpoint.

JN

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Edward Ned Harve » Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:01:56


Don't use fat or fat16 for anything except disks less than 500megs.  If
you're using a fat partition, make it fat32.

You're wrong about the long filenames.  You can store long filenames on all
fat partitions; for an example, just save some file onto a floppy, you'll
see.

The only filesystem that is natively supported by all 3, windows, linux,
and fbsd, is fat32, so nearly everybody will suggest you use fat32 for the
common storage area.

The only two disadvantages of fat32 are:  No journaling, and no
permissions.  I say, you don't need either of these on a system such as
you're using.  Forget about it and use fat32.  Otherwise, you'll have to
add filesystem drivers for two operating systems, in order to make them
support a filesystem that is native of the third, and what you'll end up
with is a system that *claims* to support these features, but really messes
them up.

For example, if you add ext2 support to the windows os, how exactly do the
permission bits get translated into acl file permissions?  When you use
windows to create a file on the ext2 fs, who will be set as the owner and
group?  Windows has no idea about such concepts, and it doesn't make much
sense to try and force it.


> Hi all,

> I am preparing the installation of a new machine and I want to make my
> first real steps in the FreeBSD world :)
> I plan to install Win2k and Linux (I need both of them for some
> compatibility reasons) and FreeBSD (I hope this can be my future all day
> Desktop system). All systems should reside on the same 80 GB disk, each
> system within it's own partition and it's appropriate FS. One big data
> partition should be available for them all and this is where I need your
> help. I did some searches in google about the topic, but I am still not
> sure what filesystem would be the best option for this data partition. Of
> course I found the FAT, FAT16, FAT32 option, but what I miss is a
> filesystem which is able to use all the features of a real unix
> filesystem, but can be accessed from win2k. I do not like the idea that
> FAT32 is not able to deal with permissions, journaling, etc. Is there a
> better solution? If I use FAT or FAT16 I am not able to use long
> filenames, so FAT32 would be the best choice out of these. Are there any
> issues against FAT32 regarding it's stability or security?

> thanks for your help
> STefan

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Jean-Yves Avenar » Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:50:36


Hello


Quote:> filesystem would be the best option for this data partition. Of course I
> found the FAT, FAT16, FAT32 option, but what I miss is a filesystem which
> is able to use all the features of a real unix filesystem, but can be
> accessed from win2k. I do not like the idea that FAT32 is not able to deal
> with permissions, journaling, etc. Is there a better solution?

I would use NTFS for all these reasons on a PC with W2K. If you want to
share the drive just use samba or mount_smb on either linux or the FreeBSD
machine.

NTFS does all you want, and in fact even more than ext2. You can have more
than one group permission per file. It's one of the only thing that windows
does better than unix unfortunately.

Jean-Yves

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Donn Mille » Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:43:51



> Hello



>> filesystem would be the best option for this data partition. Of course I
>> found the FAT, FAT16, FAT32 option, but what I miss is a filesystem which
>> is able to use all the features of a real unix filesystem, but can be
>> accessed from win2k. I do not like the idea that FAT32 is not able to deal
>> with permissions, journaling, etc. Is there a better solution?

> I would use NTFS for all these reasons on a PC with W2K. If you want to
> share the drive just use samba or mount_smb on either linux or the FreeBSD
> machine.

One caveat, however, is that FreeBSD has no write support of NTFS, and the
write support for NTFS in Linux is experimental, if at all.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Jean-Yves Avenar » Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:12:52


Hello


Quote:> One caveat, however, is that FreeBSD has no write support of NTFS, and the
> write support for NTFS in Linux is experimental, if at all.

But why would you want to access a NTFS drive under FreeBSD anyway? At least
in the original question, the guy is going to run a W2K server anyway.

JY

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Adam K Kirchhof » Fri, 12 Jul 2002 03:00:56



> Hello


>> One caveat, however, is that FreeBSD has no write support of NTFS, and the
>> write support for NTFS in Linux is experimental, if at all.
> But why would you want to access a NTFS drive under FreeBSD anyway? At least
> in the original question, the guy is going to run a W2K server anyway.

Where does he say that?  He says he's going to install all the OSes onto
*one* 80 gig driver, each in its own partition.  As far as I can tell,
he never even mentions having a separate server for the files he wants
to share between the three OSes.

Adam

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Adam K Kirchhof » Fri, 12 Jul 2002 04:24:32





> [...]
>> But why would you want to access a NTFS drive under FreeBSD anyway? At
>>  > least
>>  > in the original question, the guy is going to run a W2K server anyway.

>>  Where does he say that?  He says he's going to install all the OSes onto
>>  *one* 80 gig driver, each in its own partition.  As far as I can tell,
>>  he never even mentions having a separate server for the files he wants
>>  to share between the three OSes.
> Yes, that's it. I want to setup a desktop machine and all available
> network resources at our institution are served by Novel Netware. I will
> try to use the netware facilities from all the systems, but I never did
> something like that and before I can ask about it I need some one
> experience. Besides that it's another topic.

Stefan,

        Your best bet is still FAT32.  

        However, you can try using an ext2 filesystem.  I do believe that
fbsd supports read-write on ext2.  There is also definately a utility to
read ext2 partitions from win2k (I don't know it's name but you can find it
on google)...  It *may* even have write support.

Adam

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Donn Mille » Fri, 12 Jul 2002 05:07:08



Quote:>    However, you can try using an ext2 filesystem.  I do believe that
> fbsd supports read-write on ext2.  

Correct.  Linux also supports r/w on ufs too, although I'm almost sure W2K
doesn't read UFS.  His best bet, if he wants to make use of *nix permissions,
is ext2.  FreeBSD will also mount ext3 partitions as ext2.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Joost Kremer » Fri, 12 Jul 2002 06:32:11




> [...]
>>  The only filesystem that is natively supported by all 3, windows, linux,
>>  and fbsd, is fat32, so nearly everybody will suggest you use fat32 for the
>>  common storage area.
> [...]

> I will use fat32, this is what I learned from this thread.
> Thank you all for the help and all the discussion :))

what about using umsdos? or doesn't fbsd read that? (well, windows
doesn't either, but umsdos is basically FAT32 with some additional
files where permissions are stored. so windows is able read/write it,
although i don't know what permissions are given to files written by
windows when you mount the partition in linux...)

--
Joost Kremers           http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
Ask 8 slackers how to do something, get 10 answers.
        -- sl in alt.os.linux.slackware

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Magu » Fri, 12 Jul 2002 07:26:26






>> [...]
>>> But why would you want to access a NTFS drive under FreeBSD anyway? At
>>>  > least
>>>  > in the original question, the guy is going to run a W2K server
>>>  > anyway.

>>>  Where does he say that?  He says he's going to install all the OSes
>>>  onto
>>>  *one* 80 gig driver, each in its own partition.  As far as I can tell,
>>>  he never even mentions having a separate server for the files he wants
>>>  to share between the three OSes.

>> Yes, that's it. I want to setup a desktop machine and all available
>> network resources at our institution are served by Novel Netware. I will
>> try to use the netware facilities from all the systems, but I never did
>> something like that and before I can ask about it I need some one
>> experience. Besides that it's another topic.

> Stefan,

> Your best bet is still FAT32.

> However, you can try using an ext2 filesystem.  I do believe that
> fbsd supports read-write on ext2.  There is also definately a utility to
> read ext2 partitions from win2k (I don't know it's name but you can find
> it
> on google)...  It *may* even have write support.

I recall trying this util out about 18 months ago  - in the dark old ages
when I dualbooted Win and Slackware (OK, fair play - if I was forced to use
Linux for some reason, Slack would still be the one :)
I cant recall the name of the win-util, but I tried enabling the 'write
support' .. I remember that much - as it trashed most of /etc in the
process
The upside? - I had to re-install my *nix
Why upside? I opted to try out a 'Cheapbytes' FreeBSD 3.2 (yup!) CD I had
lying about, and never went back to the penguin party again ..

M.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Adam

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Jano » Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:36:45


On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:26:26 +0100






> >> [...]
> >>> But why would you want to access a NTFS drive under FreeBSD
> >anyway? At>>  > least
> >>>  > in the original question, the guy is going to run a W2K server
> >>>  > anyway.

> >>>  Where does he say that?  He says he's going to install all the
> >OSes>>  onto
> >>>  *one* 80 gig driver, each in its own partition.  As far as I can
> >tell,>>  he never even mentions having a separate server for the
> >files he wants>>  to share between the three OSes.

> >> Yes, that's it. I want to setup a desktop machine and all available
> >> network resources at our institution are served by Novel Netware. I
> >will> try to use the netware facilities from all the systems, but I
> >never did> something like that and before I can ask about it I need
> >some one> experience. Besides that it's another topic.

> > Stefan,

> > Your best bet is still FAT32.

> > However, you can try using an ext2 filesystem.  I do believe that
> > fbsd supports read-write on ext2.  There is also definately a
> > utility to read ext2 partitions from win2k (I don't know it's name
> > but you can find it
> > on google)...  It *may* even have write support.

> I recall trying this util out about 18 months ago  - in the dark old
> ages when I dualbooted Win and Slackware (OK, fair play - if I was
> forced to use Linux for some reason, Slack would still be the one :)
> I cant recall the name of the win-util, but I tried enabling the
> 'write support' .. I remember that much - as it trashed most of /etc
> in the process
> The upside? - I had to re-install my *nix
> Why upside? I opted to try out a 'Cheapbytes' FreeBSD 3.2 (yup!) CD I
> had lying about, and never went back to the penguin party again ..

> M.

> > Adam

It's called explore2fs and is sort of a filemanager for ext2 partitions.
It isn't seamlessly integrated, and IIRC you have to copy files from the
ext2 partition to your windows partition before you can use them for
anything.

Janon

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Edward Ned Harve » Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:23:24



> what about using umsdos? or doesn't fbsd read that? (well, windows
> doesn't either, but umsdos is basically FAT32 with some additional
> files where permissions are stored. so windows is able read/write it,
> although i don't know what permissions are given to files written by
> windows when you mount the partition in linux...)

I don't know if fbsd supports this, but you're right, that would be a
rather good choice.  It resides in native fat32, and therefore is readable
by all the os'es.  Only question is, which permissions get supported?

The windows side of the machine will ignore all permissions and have full
access for everybody.

The linux side of the box will have degraded performance due to the
overhead of storing filesystem information inside a file of another
filesystem.

With some luck, fbsd will have the same support as the linux side of
things, regarding umsdos.

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Joost Kremer » Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:32:29




>> what about using umsdos? or doesn't fbsd read that? (well, windows
>> doesn't either, but umsdos is basically FAT32 with some additional
>> files where permissions are stored. so windows is able read/write it,
>> although i don't know what permissions are given to files written by
>> windows when you mount the partition in linux...)

> I don't know if fbsd supports this, but you're right, that would be a
> rather good choice.  It resides in native fat32, and therefore is readable
> by all the os'es.  Only question is, which permissions get supported?

yup. that's the question...

Quote:> The linux side of the box will have degraded performance due to the
> overhead of storing filesystem information inside a file of another
> filesystem.

true. if you can do without the permissions, or if it is sufficient to
let all files on that partition have the same (pseudo) permissions,
FAT will be good enough. but if for some reason you really want or
need permissions on that partition, umsdos might (and let me stress
`might', as i have never tested this myself) be a solution.

--
Joost Kremers           http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
Ask 8 slackers how to do something, get 10 answers.
        -- sl in alt.os.linux.slackware

 
 
 

fbsd + linux + win2k: what's the best filesystem for a shared slice/partition

Post by Michael Schmiedge » Mon, 15 Jul 2002 01:09:13



> NTFS does all you want, and in fact even more than ext2. You can have more
> than one group permission per file. It's one of the only thing that windows
> does better than unix unfortunately.

ACLs conform POSIX. But they are not implemented in FreeBSD 4.

--
       Michael Schmiedgen          Schmalkalden, 13.07.2002, 17:00

http://www.takwa.de/~schmiedgen/   Windrichtung Nord, Windstaerke 2

 
 
 

1. Sharing a partition (slice) with Linux

Hi. I've got two 2gb SCSI discs, one has FreeBSD2.2.2 installed
and the other Red Hat Linux (jun96).  Each disc contains a /home
and sometimes I boot Linux, sometimes FreeBSD.

When running Linux, I'd like to mount the freebsd /home as /bak/home
and when running FreeBSD I'd like to mount the linux /home as /bak/home.
Then I just back up from /home to /bak/home before logging out, no tapes.
Linux can mount a ufs partition, so that's what I'm using.  FreeBSD
claims to support ext2fs partitions, but I get "filesystem not available"
messages (even after compiling a kernel with ext2fs support), so I'm
sticking to ufs.

I'm having trouble with slices and partitions.  Linux sees the FreeBSD
slices as partitions, so it can't mount a filesystem made on /dev/sd1s4e
or /dev/sd1s4c.  It picks up "last mounted on /home" but doesn't detect
a valid ufs filesystem and mount it readonly.  On the other hand, FreeBSD
refuses to "newfs /dev/rsd1s4" on the whole slice.

If I make the slice a Linux slice, then FreeBSD won't newfs it, and Linux
will only make a ext2fs filesystem on it.

I couldn't find anything in the FAQ about sharing filesystems with Linux,
and I'm in a bind.  Can anyone give me that magic hint ?

Regards,  Peter Billam

2. ESS 1888

3. which partition manager is best, trying to install LINUX on my installed Win2K PC

4. Red Hat ready to cash in on Linux

5. What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc (solaris) and Linux?

6. redhat 5.0,tar and the latest kernel

7. sharing fat32 partition between linux (/home directory) and win2k

8. Today I was really insulted..

9. sharing a fat32 partition between win2k and linux (/home directory)

10. Best way to change from FBSD-2.2.7 to FBSD-4.1-stable

11. Best slices for root partition and swap

12. sharing /home partition with win2k ?

13. What's the best Dual Processor board for FBSD