Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage Operating Systems Software Windows

Windows Alternatives to NTFS? 140 140

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Alternatives to NTFS?

Comments Filter:
  • by x00101010x (631764) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @03:04PM (#9306509) Homepage
    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.
  • by lscoughlin (71054) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @04:01PM (#9307363) Homepage
    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.
  • Probably not (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mattcelt (454751) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @04:24PM (#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:File size (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LSD-OBS (183415) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @05:36PM (#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.
  • hey you got it! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mabhatter654 (561290) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:23PM (#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!!!

  • by shaitand (626655) * on Wednesday June 02, 2004 @01:35AM (#9312074) Journal
    But write support is no longer marked experimental in the 2.6 kernel.

    For good reason I'd say, I've been using NTFS write support for the past several revisions without a single hiccup.

    First I was cautious and ginger in my handling of NTFS writes, and then more bold. Now I don't consider corruption anymore than I would with windows. I guess that comes from hundreds if not thousands of writes without a single issue *shrugs*.

    In any case, if the kernel maintainers think it's safe to take off the experimental tag, and I've used it without any problems. Maybe it'll go well for you too.

    NTFS write used to be horrid, and required external cleanup utils just to use. That's long long gone, if you've been afraid to touch it because of being burned in the past, seriously, it's time to try again.
  • by shaitand (626655) * on Wednesday June 02, 2004 @01:45AM (#9312118) Journal
    Linux can both read and write NTFS. Read support has been stable for eternity now, write support was finally marked stable in the 2.6 kernel.

    I've been using NTFS write support for the past several versions.

    I don't know if people assume NTFS doesn't work on linux because distro's don't generally include it in their kernel builds or because the write support was horrid and corrupted filesystems once upon a time.

Save energy: Drive a smaller shell.

Working...