What filesystem do you use?

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-10-28 05:27pm

Which filesystem do you use (any OS, yes I kno)? Which do you think is faster?
Specify OS, version, filesystem types, and modifications from default such as patches to use ACLs under Linux.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2003-10-28 05:29pm

My system has both FAT32 and NTFS partitions.

Because I dual boot between XP, for general use and 98, for the sake of some old games, and a partition that needs to be available to both.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-10-28 05:39pm

NTFS.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-10-28 05:40pm

NTFS

I dislike FAT16/32 with a passion.

NTFS is not much better but atleast it is an inprovement over fat.

Embracer Of Darkness · Post by **Embracer Of Darkness** » 2003-10-28 05:53pm

NTFS.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-10-28 06:50pm

NTFS on Windows

Ext3 for my boot and home partitions in Linux, XFS for everything else.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-28 07:02pm

FAT32

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-28 08:50pm

HFS Extended.

BrYaN19kc · Post by **BrYaN19kc** » 2003-10-28 09:16pm

NTFS (the only way to go!

)

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-10-28 09:33pm

phongn wrote:NTFS on Windows

Ext3 for my boot and home partitions in Linux, XFS for everything else.

You use XFS? Isn't it supposed to be slightly flaky? And performance advantage is exaggerated- mostly useful for large files. For many many many small files, ReiserFS is supposed to be better (it's meant for people storing stuff in many flat text files instead of a database).
Damn bastard, has a better FS then I do... oh well, wait few months to upgrade to Reiser4, besides ReiserFS is technologically superior, despite slightly slower performance
I have my windows stuff on a 10GB FAT32 partion, with Linux on 29.2GB ReiserFS, and swap on 0.8GB. I do not seperate the root directories into seperate partitions, since it is impossible to foresee future needs and I don't nuke my linux installation every few months unlike users of certain distributions, and LVM probably has poorer performance (I had to resize my ReiserFS partition twice due to lack of space on Windows, from 0 to 5 to 10.
I do not trust dynamic discs on Linux despite nothing indicating it is unstable, since it's been reverse engineered. And why do you have a boot partition for, what, a maximum of 10 megs, and usually not even that (the only reason for my system being that way is the 3-4 kernel images and related files for each I have on my /boot)?
I do not have an NTFS partition, since I want R/W access to all my files from Linux, and stuff on Windows isn't important anyway, not to mention I haven't run Windows on this computer for about 3 weeks.

BTW, no such thing as NTSF

.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-10-28 09:53pm

Pu-239 wrote:You use XFS? Isn't it supposed to be slightly flaky? And performance advantage is exaggerated- mostly useful for large files. For many many many small files, ReiserFS is supposed to be better (it's meant for people storing stuff in many flat text files instead of a database).

I find ReiserFS more flakey, and it undergoes such major changes at times to be annoying. SGI's XFS is more reliable for me.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2003-10-28 10:15pm

OS: WinXP SP1a

File system: NTFS (because FAT anything SUCKS!)

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-29 02:36am

NTFS on the main hard drive, FAT32 on the secondary, because
the secondary stores all my importat stuff, and I want it to be
accessible to anything

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-10-29 02:39am

Several small Fat32 partitions for storing things such as Windows 98 and documents that I use in both Windows and Linux; two NTFS partitions, one for Windows 2000 and one for the programs I use under that, and finally several Ext3 partitions for Linux. (Fragmentation? What's that?

)

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-10-29 03:20am

FAT32 and ReiserFS.

I don't use Windows for anything other than games, so I saw no need to run a version more recent than '98.

I miss HPFS, though.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-10-29 01:06pm

I put them in little folders.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-10-29 03:03pm

Also uses the little magic folders.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-10-29 10:34pm

NTFS and FAT32.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-10-30 04:40am

One FAT16 boot partition that has this 5 year old copy of Windows NT on it, it's survived several hardrives and computers and it's still going, I use it as my emergency OS incase some of the others won't boot or somesuch.
Then I got 2 NTFS partitions, I recently removed FreeBSD since I never ever use it.

Psycho Smiley · Post by **Psycho Smiley** » 2003-10-30 08:38am

Ok, serious question for you WinXP experts:

I'm running XP Pro using FAT32 (it came that way) but am thinking about converting to NTFS. I've heard the official pros and cons from Microsoft, and none of the warnings apply to me. Are there any other ones that I need to know about? And will the benefits be noticeable?

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-10-30 09:14am

Psycho Smiley wrote:Ok, serious question for you WinXP experts:

I'm running XP Pro using FAT32 (it came that way) but am thinking about converting to NTFS. I've heard the official pros and cons from Microsoft, and none of the warnings apply to me. Are there any other ones that I need to know about? And will the benefits be noticeable?

Not really the bigest con IMHO is that you can't access the NTFS disk wo 3rd party stuff once it is ntfs.

Othervise follow the standard rules for any installation/modification.

Backup your stuff.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2003-10-30 11:03am

Psycho Smiley wrote:Ok, serious question for you WinXP experts:

I'm running XP Pro using FAT32 (it came that way) but am thinking about converting to NTFS. I've heard the official pros and cons from Microsoft, and none of the warnings apply to me. Are there any other ones that I need to know about? And will the benefits be noticeable?

FAT32 sucks, and sucks unbelievable hard.

For one, NTFS is much better at surviving an unexpected shutdown than FAT32.

And more importantly of all, you can implement filesystem level security settings.

The 'simple' security & file sharing mode is actualy useful if you dont know what you are doing.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2003-10-30 11:08am

I use NTFS on all the computers I own (a win9x kernel isnt getting anywere near them!)

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-10-30 03:49pm

Faram wrote:
Psycho Smiley wrote:Ok, serious question for you WinXP experts:

I'm running XP Pro using FAT32 (it came that way) but am thinking about converting to NTFS. I've heard the official pros and cons from Microsoft, and none of the warnings apply to me. Are there any other ones that I need to know about? And will the benefits be noticeable?
Not really the bigest con IMHO is that you can't access the NTFS disk wo 3rd party stuff once it is ntfs.

Othervise follow the standard rules for any installation/modification.

Backup your stuff.

Actually, you can READ the stuff with a linux boot disk. You can't WRITE to it though (well, without risk of trashing disc). So, yeah, switch to NTFS all the way if you are not dual booting. There's a read-only driver for NTFS for win9x I believe, and there is read-write if you pay.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-10-31 01:02am

Pu-239 wrote:Actually, you can READ the stuff with a linux boot disk. You can't WRITE to it though (well, without risk of trashing disc). So, yeah, switch to NTFS all the way if you are not dual booting. There's a read-only driver for NTFS for win9x I believe, and there is read-write if you pay.

I've used it. I believe the driver is called NTFS98 or something like that.

At any rate, the only way you can enable NTFS write support with Linux is to enable the write part of the alpha driver in the kernel, which is a fair bit of work. I decided to not run the risk of trashing my NTFS partition and simply have a few FAT32 partitions for temporary stuff.