Is there a
filesystem that will make that unnecessary and exhibit better
reliability than NTFS?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, FAT. It works and works well.
>>> Or exFAT which is Microsoft's solution to the problem of very large
>>> files on FAT.
>>
>>
>> FAT32 won't work for me since I need to u
On 02/09/2016 00:56, Kai Krakow wrote:
Am Wed, 31 Aug 2016 02:32:24 +0200
schrieb Alan McKinnon :
On 31/08/2016 02:08, Grant wrote:
[...]
[...]
You can't control ownership and permissions of existing files with
mount options on a Linux filesystem. See man mount.
So in order to use a USB
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Kai Krakow wrote:
> Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:59:02 -0400
> schrieb Rich Freeman :
>
>>
>> That depends on the mode of operation. In journal=data I believe
>> everything gets written twice, which should make it fairly immune to
>> most forms of corruption.
>
> No, jou
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 23:50:17 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
> > > ext2 will work, but you'll have to mount it or chmod -R 0777, or
> > > only root will be able to access it.
> >
> > That's not true. Whoever owns the files and directories will be able
> > to access then, even if root mounted the stic
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
wrote:
>
> a common misconception. But not true at all. Google a bit.
Feel free to enlighten us. My understanding is that data=journal
means that all data gets written first to the journal. Completed
writes will make it to the main filesystem
Am 31.08.2016 um 16:33 schrieb Michael Mol:
>
> In data=journal mode, the contents of files pass through the journal as well,
> ensuring that, at least as far as the filesystem's responsibility is
> concerned,
> the data will be intact in the event of a crash.
a common misconception. But not tr
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> The sad truth is that many (most?) users don't understand the idea of
> unmounting. Even Microsoft largely gave up, having flash drives "optimized for
> data safety" as opposed to "optimized for speed". While it'd be nice if the
> average Joh
On Thursday, September 01, 2016 04:21:18 PM J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 01, 2016 08:41:39 AM Michael Mol wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote:
> > > >> Which NTFS system are you using?
> > > >>
> > > >> n
On Thursday, September 01, 2016 09:35:15 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> > The defaults for vm.dirty_bytes and vm.dirty_background_bytes are, IMO,
> > badly broken and an insidious source of problems for both regular Linux
> > users and system administ
On Thursday, September 01, 2016 08:41:39 AM Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote:
> > >> Which NTFS system are you using?
> > >>
> > >> ntfs kernel module? It's quite dodgy and unsafe with writes
> > >> ntfs-ng on
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> The defaults for vm.dirty_bytes and vm.dirty_background_bytes are, IMO, badly
> broken and an insidious source of problems for both regular Linux users and
> system administrators.
>
It depends on whether you tend to yank out drives without u
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote:
> >> Which NTFS system are you using?
> >>
> >> ntfs kernel module? It's quite dodgy and unsafe with writes
> >> ntfs-ng on fuse? I find that one quite solid
> >
> > I'm using ntfs-ng as opposed to
On 01/09/2016 05:42, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM GMT+02:00, Alan McKinnon
> wrote:
>> On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote:
> Is there a
> filesystem that will make that unnecessary and exhibit better
> reliability than NTFS?
Yes, FAT. It works and work
On August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM GMT+02:00, Alan McKinnon
wrote:
>On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote:
Is there a
filesystem that will make that unnecessary and exhibit better
reliability than NTFS?
>>>
>>> Yes, FAT. It works and works well.
>>> Or exFAT which is Microsoft's solution t
On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote:
Is there a
filesystem that will make that unnecessary and exhibit better
reliability than NTFS?
Yes, FAT. It works and works well.
Or exFAT which is Microsoft's solution to the problem of very large
files on FAT.
FAT32 won't work for me since I need to use
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:09:43 -0400, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > Have you considered using cloud storage for the files instead? That
> > also gives you the option of version control with some services.
>
> The initial backup of my hard drives would easily burn through my
> monthly gigabyt
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 08:47:11AM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:45:22 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
> > USB sticks are not that reliable to start with, so
> > relying on the filesystem to preserve your important files is not
> > enough. You have spent far more time on this t
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:12:15 AM Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> Am 30.08.2016 um 23:59 schrieb Rich Freeman:
>> >
>> > That depends on the mode of operation. In journal=data I believe
>> > everything gets written twice, which should
>> Is there a
>> filesystem that will make that unnecessary and exhibit better
>> reliability than NTFS?
>
> Yes, FAT. It works and works well.
> Or exFAT which is Microsoft's solution to the problem of very large
> files on FAT.
FAT32 won't work for me since I need to use files larger than 4GB.
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:12:15 AM Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am 30.08.2016 um 23:59 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> >
> > wrote:
> >> the journal does not add any data integrity benefits at all. It just
> >> makes it more likely that t
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:30:42 +0200, Alarig Le Lay wrote:
> On Wed Aug 31 08:47:11 2016, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > Have you considered using cloud storage for the files instead? That
> > also gives you the option of version control with some services.
>
> Seriously, why cloud? The Cloud is basica
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Alarig Le Lay wrote:
> On Wed Aug 31 08:47:11 2016, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> Have you considered using cloud storage for the files instead? That also
>> gives you the option of version control with some services.
>
> Seriously, why cloud? The Cloud is basically a ma
On Wed Aug 31 08:47:11 2016, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Have you considered using cloud storage for the files instead? That also
> gives you the option of version control with some services.
Seriously, why cloud? The Cloud is basically a marketing term that
define “Internet, like before, but cooler”,
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:45:22 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> USB sticks are not that reliable to start with, so
> relying on the filesystem to preserve your important files is not
> enough. You have spent far more time on this than you would have spent
> making backups of the file!
Have you conside
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:08:26 -0700, Grant wrote:
> > You can't control ownership and permissions of existing files with
> > mount options on a Linux filesystem. See man mount.
>
> So in order to use a USB stick between multiple Gentoo systems with
> ext2, I need to make sure my users have match
On 31/08/2016 02:08, Grant wrote:
And why use exfat if you use linux? It is just not needed at all.
>>>
>>> I agree. If you want to transport something between Linux systems,
>>> use ext2/3 and use "mount" options to handle the permission issues.
>>
>> You can't control ownership and permissi
>> > And why use exfat if you use linux? It is just not needed at all.
>>
>> I agree. If you want to transport something between Linux systems,
>> use ext2/3 and use "mount" options to handle the permission issues.
>
> You can't control ownership and permissions of existing files with mount
> opti
On 31/08/2016 01:06, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2016-08-30, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:42:05 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
>>
And why use exfat if you use linux? It is just not needed at all.
>>>
>>> I agree. If you want to transport something between Linux systems,
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:42:05 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> > And why use exfat if you use linux? It is just not needed at all.
>
> I agree. If you want to transport something between Linux systems,
> use ext2/3 and use "mount" options to handle the permission issues.
You can't control o
Am 30.08.2016 um 23:59 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> wrote:
>> the journal does not add any data integrity benefits at all. It just
>> makes it more likely that the fs is in a sane state if there is a crash.
>> Likely. Not a guarantee. Your data? N
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
wrote:
>
> the journal does not add any data integrity benefits at all. It just
> makes it more likely that the fs is in a sane state if there is a crash.
> Likely. Not a guarantee. Your data? No one cares.
>
That depends on the mode of operat
Am 30.08.2016 um 22:46 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Grant Edwards
> wrote:
>> There's nothing in Gentoo that guarantees everybody has ext2 support
>> in their kernels. That said, I agree that ext2 (or perhaps ext3 with
>> journalling disabled -- I've always been a bit
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Grant Edwards
wrote:
>
> There's nothing in Gentoo that guarantees everybody has ext2 support
> in their kernels. That said, I agree that ext2 (or perhaps ext3 with
> journalling disabled -- I've always been a bit fuzzy on whether that's
> exactly the same thing o
33 matches
Mail list logo
