Best file system for Mandrake 10/Win2kPro dual boot system

JediToren · Post by **JediToren** » 2004-05-28 01:49am

Okay. So my CD's of Mandrake Linux 10 arrived yesterday and I am itching to get the OS installed.

However, all three of my hard drives, (20GB, 30GB,, and 60GB, all Maxtor) are all NTFS. From what I have read, Linux can read NTFS fine, but cannot reliably write to NTFS.

It's also been my understanding that FAT32 is not capable of partitions larger than 32GB, but Linux can handle it no problem.

I will be reloading my system and splitting the 20GB drive into three partitions, one for 2000, one for XP, and one for Mandrake. I keep all of my games and files on my 60GB drive, which allows me to reload my operating system or swap out the hard drive without having to reload all of my files from backup.

For whatever reason, the 30GB takes eons to format, so its unformatted for the time being.

So those of you with dual boot Windows/Linux systems, what file system do you use and why?
Are FAT32 and NTFS the only options for a dual boot system?

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2004-05-28 02:06am

I use NTFS for win2k and ext3 for linux. It's true that linux can't write to NTFS, but that generally isn't an issue for me because my computers are all networked and if I want to share data between linux and windows I put it on a network drive. If you have only one computer, it might be wise to use the 30GB drive for FAT32 Windows and the 20GB drive for ext3 Linux, with the 60GB drive continuing to serve as a data repository.

JediToren · Post by **JediToren** » 2004-05-28 03:01am

AdmiralKanos wrote:If you have only one computer, it might be wise to use the 30GB drive for FAT32 Windows and the 20GB drive for ext3 Linux,

Right now only 4.27 GB of my 20 GB drive is filled, and that's with Win2000Pro and all of my software (excluding games) installed. WinXP is only taking 1.7 GB (though I hardly have any apps installed).
How much space does the average Mandrake install take up?

AdmiralKanos wrote:with the 60GB drive continuing to serve as a data repository.

With a FAT32 file system, right?

Thanks

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-05-28 03:45am

I've got a 30GB partition for Win2k (formatted NTFS), 30GB for Linux (main parition formatted ReiserFS, with 1GB being a swap partition and 32MB being an ext2 /boot partition) and 20GB for shared files (formatted as FAT32.) It works fairly well, although I should've just given 20GB to Win2k and 40GB to Linux, since I'm using almost none of the space on my NTFS partition.

And the limit on a FAT32 partition is 20GB, not 32.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-05-28 06:34am

Any drive/partition formated with FAT32 should only be used as a temp storage area.

Dont install Windows XP/2k onto a FAT32 drive. It only causes nightmares.

Use the FAT32 partition only as data storage, dont install crap to it.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-05-28 05:07pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:I use NTFS for win2k and ext3 for linux. It's true that linux can't write to NTFS, but that generally isn't an issue for me because my computers are all networked and if I want to share data between linux and windows I put it on a network drive. If you have only one computer, it might be wise to use the 30GB drive for FAT32 Windows and the 20GB drive for ext3 Linux, with the 60GB drive continuing to serve as a data repository.

Eww... Ext3. Reiser or XFS is better... then again, you probably don't handle directory trees with thousands of files (source trees) or large multimedia files.

Iguana, I've had a 25GB FAT32 partition once (created with the Linux fdisk though). Current partitioning setup is: 30GB Linux XFS, 563 MB swap, and 9.4GB Linux ReiserFS, which used to be my Windows partition before I nuked it since I was pissed at some comment made by BoredShirtless (Yes, I'm that stupid).

A tip would be to format FAT partitions with Linux, since the Linux mkfs.* programs are MUCH faster (seconds vs tens of minutes).

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-06-02 06:12pm

FAT32 only able to handle 20 or 32 GB? Since when? I've a 486 with a 80GB Maxtor harddisk in it with a single FAT32 partition running on 98SE. (yes you read that correctly) Never gave any problems. My brother has a WinXP machine with a 120GB Maxtor HD with FAT32 and it hasn't given problems either, still working fine for over a year now. Basically all our 6 PCs use FAT32, harddisks sizes being 7.5 GB, 30GB, 2x40GB, 3x80GB and 120GB. All are Maxtor harddisks with the exception of the 7.5 which is Western Digital IIRC. 486 to AMD3200, everything runs on Win98SE with the exception of the AMD2600 with the 120GB harddisk. Oh and yes, the disks are pretty full...

JediToren wrote: (20GB, 30GB,, and 60GB, all Maxtor) (...)
For whatever reason, the 30GB takes eons to format, so its unformatted for the time being.

Ever heard of Maxblast? Can partition+format it faster then the damn program starts from the floppy disk... I use often. It's the reason I buy Maxtor drives.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-06-02 07:20pm

Sokartawi wrote:FAT32 only able to handle 20 or 32 GB? Since when? I've a 486 with a 80GB Maxtor harddisk in it with a single FAT32 partition running on 98SE. (yes you read that correctly) Never gave any problems. My brother has a WinXP machine with a 120GB Maxtor HD with FAT32 and it hasn't given problems either, still working fine for over a year now. Basically all our 6 PCs use FAT32, harddisks sizes being 7.5 GB, 30GB, 2x40GB, 3x80GB and 120GB. All are Maxtor harddisks with the exception of the 7.5 which is Western Digital IIRC. 486 to AMD3200, everything runs on Win98SE with the exception of the AMD2600 with the 120GB harddisk. Oh and yes, the disks are pretty full...

JediToren wrote: (20GB, 30GB,, and 60GB, all Maxtor) (...)
For whatever reason, the 30GB takes eons to format, so its unformatted for the time being.
Ever heard of Maxblast? Can partition+format it faster then the damn program starts from the floppy disk... I use often. It's the reason I buy Maxtor drives.

Or linux boot floppy/Knoppix. Use cfdisk + mkfs.vfat to quick format. FAT32 partitions.

Anyway, why are you running such large FAT32 partitions, and not dual booting?

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-06-02 08:13pm

Sokartawi wrote:FAT32 only able to handle 20 or 32 GB? Since when? I've a 486 with a 80GB Maxtor harddisk in it with a single FAT32 partition running on 98SE. (yes you read that correctly) Never gave any problems. My brother has a WinXP machine with a 120GB Maxtor HD with FAT32 and it hasn't given problems either, still working fine for over a year now. Basically all our 6 PCs use FAT32, harddisks sizes being 7.5 GB, 30GB, 2x40GB, 3x80GB and 120GB. All are Maxtor harddisks with the exception of the 7.5 which is Western Digital IIRC. 486 to AMD3200, everything runs on Win98SE with the exception of the AMD2600 with the 120GB harddisk. Oh and yes, the disks are pretty full...

The problem with FAT32 is that it wastes space. It wastes a lot of space. The minimum file allocation table size is roughly 16 MB minus 64 KB, and its maximum size is up around a gigabyte, even more possibly. In fact, the Windows 2000/XP formatting tool will not let you use FAT32 to format partitions over 32 gigabytes in size since FAT is so inefficient.