Why isn't there a modern, feature-rich, reliable filesystem that is broadly supported on both *nix and Windows?
I use a small linux machine as a home file server, and most of the storage is on external USB3 drives. Usually, I access everything through samba shares to windows and mac machines on my network, and other protocols for dedicated devices (DLNA, chromecast, whatever). In these use cases, the filesystem doesn't matter, because every type of access I regularly use is agnostic to it. However, sometimes, such as when I travel, I need to be able to detach one of the hard drives and use it directly with my windows laptop. Right now, I have the drives formatted as NTFS, because it is the only modern filesystem that works out of the box with both windows and the linux distribution on my server. But of course, using NTFS on hard drives that are plugged into a linux machine 99% of the time makes no sense at all. I would much rather use a filesystem that properly supports user permissions and security, is stable, fast, etc.
Yet, it is my understanding that software to give ext2/3/4 support on windows is clunky at best. I need to be able to read and write to the drive when it is plugged into my windows laptop as if it were any other drive-lettered removable storage. I don't mind if I need to install a driver.
It seems like there is no right answer in this situation. There are mature, usable filesystems for every platform, and there are all kinds of cutting edge experimental filesystems that look great on paper, but there's nothing you can use if you want to reliably drift between platforms. Why is that?
To be sure, I don't mind if it's patented or proprietary, although I suspect that the hypothetical "killer FS" would be free, if only because I think it would be unlikely that a proprietary FS would have better cross-platform support than NTFS.
Mostly I'm just shocked by the total lack of usable support for any free FS on windows.
He didn't say it had to be open, just feature-rich, reliable, and broadly supported.
exFAT is what I use on all my storage drives to share them between VMs and boot partitions because it'll work anywhere.
My understanding is that exFAT is designed for flash memory. Is it suitable for spinning magnetic disks that I want to have a long life? Is it suitable for single volumes as large as 5 TB?
because M$ monopoly doesn't want to use superior technology, so it's stuck with stone age shit like NTFS and NTFS2: totally not the same shit as NTFS edition. Meanwhile, zfs and btrfs can both be used on REAL operating systems like GNU/Linux.
It's called GNU/Linux because there is also such a thing as Dalvik/Linux and GNU/HURD. BSD, solaris, OSX, and others support at least zfs and probably BTRFS too. On the other hand, M$ closedwindows...
Android is the name of the distro. Android is a Dalvik/Linux (or, accordingly, ART/Linux) distro. Aside from GNU/HURD, Dalvik/Linux and GNU/Linux, there is also BSD/Linux and other variants.
>Why isn't there a modern, feature-rich, reliable filesystem that is broadly supported on both *nix and Windows?
>on both *nix and Windows
Enjoy you're NTFS/ReFS/FATxyz
It sounds like there really is basically no answer to this problem. What do people on /g/ who dualboot use? Surely there are others who need to access volumes from both linux and windows. Is NTFS, despite its woeful support on anything nonwindows, the standard for this?
I just use NTFS and ext4
I boot in to Loonix, and copy anything from my NTFS partition to my ext4 partition, it just werks
I boot in to Loonix, and copy anything from my ext4 partition to my NTFS partition, it just werks
I boot in to Windows, and the files I copied to the NTFS partition are there
Windows doesn't know the ext4 partition exists though, so I can't go from NTFS to ext4 on Windows
Don't use NTFS with Linux. It is unstable and can result in a loss of data. It's "safe" to read, but writing can become a concern.
FAT is well supported, but the limits make it unusable (Small capacity, 4GB file limit, various other limitations)
So that's what dualbooters etc. do, which is fine for some use cases I guess. Unfortunately my problem drive serves media, so it's not very useful to have only a small shared partition. I really need to be able to use the whole volume from any given OS.
It looks like Microsoft-authored filesystems are really the only ones with any hope of being useful for that. NTFS with its poor and insecure support, exFAT which I'm afraid to use for a spinning disk in continuous use, and FAT32 which is a nonstarter for a dozen other reasons.
I guess what I should really do is have only one drive that I can "take with me," keeping the other drives ext4/zfs/btrfs/whatever formatted and resigning not to be able to use them directly from windows.
I have been writing NTFS drives as I've described a few times for months now. I'm not encountering any problems I'm aware of, but if something is going wrong, how will I know?
>Don't use NTFS with Linux. It is unstable and can result in a loss of data. It's "safe" to read, but writing can become a concern.
I haven't run into any issues yet, but if you put characters like ? and : in a filename from Linux and then try to open that file in Windows, you're gonna have a bad time.
Use ReiserFS. It has some very useful features.
Because Microsoft fucking hates you. Modern filesystems work in every OS except for Windows. And writing a filesystem driver is a motherfucker. Most of the people that would be able to do it would much rather spend their time supporting operating systems that aren't actively fighting against them. I mean, even if you could get EXT2/3/4 working properly on Windows you still couldn't install Windows to it, so you'd have to use Microsoft's shitty implementations anyway. So if you're using Windows you need to accept that you're going to be gimping yourself. So instead of that just run Windows in a VM for the few things you need it for, so you can restrict their shitty filesystem to a virtual disk that's kept on a non-shit modern filesystem.
Also, an alternative is to format the external drive with a decent filesystem, run Linux in a VM, pass the USB device to the VM, mount the filesystem in Linux, and set that mountpoint as a shared directory between the VM and the host OS.
That's actually what I was thinking about doing. There's probably a decent way to automate that with a headless VM. It might even be more convenient than just plugging the drive in physically and using it with the letter windows assigns, because if I set up the VM to have the same hostname as my actual home server, then I could have the drive be mounted with the same drive letter as it has when I use it as a network drive (since it would still be a network drive, just served by a local VM).
I mean, VMware Player and Virtualbox can both do what you're looking for. Just have the VMs start on boot with your computer. I'm pretty sure when you pass something through to it, it'll automatically grab it in the future. Then just use the guest utilities to make a shared directory, so you don't even need to set up samba or NFS or whatever, it's built into the VM.
Makes sense, should work. You can definitely have the VMs autostart on boot, so worst case you have to just click "connect" to attach the external HDD if it doesn't do so itself, then have automounter in the Linux VM do its thing.
Why can't you autist lintards keep it professional, you always get the intention of discussing with a 12 year old. Windows runs 99% of business software, so why gimp yourself by running it inside a vm on a host os that only has a total crap virtualisation feature implemented? Might as well just use windows and the 1% of useful freetard tools that are all already ported to windows.
Keep calm and dual boot
NTFS used to have issues on Linux.
The only problem now is that Windows 8 will hibernate instead of shutdown (unless you turn that feature off). If that happens, the Linux drivers will only mount it as read-only so its not a problem.
I can also mount my EXT4 partition as read-only on Windows. It's actually rather nice.