Reliability of file systems - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Reliability of file systems - Ubuntu ; I did not know Linux could do a chkdsk on NTFS partitions? Isn't that stuff meant to be closed off to the Windows world?...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Reliability of file systems

  1. Re: Reliability of file systems

    I did not know Linux could do a chkdsk on NTFS partitions? Isn't that
    stuff meant to be closed off to the Windows world?


  2. Re: Reliability of file systems

    On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:44:29 +0000, Demosthenes wrote:

    > Flame wars, RTFM, damn newbies, etc etc.


    SUBSCRIBE

  3. Re: Reliability of file systems

    I use both and cannot tell the difference.  That does not mean there is no difference and I too would like an answer to your question.   I have one local drive and two network drives using ntfs.  On the local drive I use ntfsconf3 to read and write.  No known problems.  My Linux drive it ext3.

    B wrote:

    I plan to put together a basic home server for backup purposes. I an not too fussed as to what OS it runs but I am concerned with the reliability of the file system. I have twice lost data to unexplained NTFS file system corruption and would like to know if there is any evidence that ext3 is more reliable which would alone be reason to make Linux the choice over Windows. Thanks.


  4. Re: Reliability of file systems



    Demosthenes wrote:

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:26:47 +0000, B wrote:



    I plan to put together a basic home server for backup purposes. I an not too fussed as to what OS it runs but I am concerned with the reliability of the file system. I have twice lost data to unexplained NTFS file system corruption and would like to know if there is any evidence that ext3 is more reliable which would alone be reason to make Linux the choice over Windows. Thanks.



    oh that's a worry... were you running Windows accessing NTFS? I have a massive amount of data sitting on NTFS that I use 3G to read and write to, until I get around to migrating it all to ReiserFS which I hear is very robust and faster than EXT3?


    I read that the main force behind ReiserFS  is on trial for some crime and may be going to jail for a long time if convicted.  You may want to question the long term support of this file system.  There have been improvements in ext3 so I am not sure what the benefits are over the potential risk.  Since ext3 is more heavily supported it will even get better.

  5. (OT) HTML Posts. NOT. (Was: Reliability of file systems)

    In <1C_Zi.9548$yV6.7704@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> measekite:

    >


    Please turn off HTML posting (use plaintext instead). TIA...

    --
    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
    Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

  6. Re: Reliability of file systems

    Trevor Best wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:57:17 -0700
    > ray wrote:
    >
    >> > I have never had a problem with ext3, ReiserFS or NTFS (unless I'm using
    >> > the OS for which it was designed). Of course, there are serious
    >> > concerns now about the future of the ReiserFS file system, since the
    >> > author, Hans Reiser is going to trial for allegedly murdering his
    >> > Russian wife.

    >>
    >> What's already out will not become less reliable whether he's available or
    >> not. BTW - in prison he could have a lot of free time.

    >
    > They might only have Windows PCs though.
    >


    Windows with bars on them...

  7. Re: Reliability of file systems

    Jeroen Geilman wrote:
    > xubunt6 wrote:
    >
    >> Faster? I read a few performance tests of different linux filesystem,
    >> among which reisiger and ext3.

    >
    > *Reiser*. Not "Reisiger" - Reiser.
    >
    >> Differences are small and depend on what you read / write: large
    >> files, small ones, files "all over the disk", a few, al lot and so on.

    >
    > The differences can, in fact, be huge, depending on what type of use you
    > put it to.
    >
    > Reiser is known to test well with large amounts of small files, but less
    > so than ext3 with huge files.
    >
    >> What i myself ones found out on ntfs4 was the "fastest" cluster.

    >
    > That makes no sense anywhere.
    >
    >> Win default is 0.5 kb.

    >
    > Bull****.
    > It's been 4K since NT was invented.
    >
    >> 4kb was faster, but not much more than 2kb.

    >
    > Well, how would you know ? It's the *default* for NTFS partitions, so
    > you've probably used them all your life.
    >
    >> Personally i will use a 2kb or 4 kb cluster next time on ext3, when i
    >> format again. I saw an advice somewhere on internet too for the 2kb
    >> cluster for ext3.

    >
    > Yeah, and you just copy what you read - stellar job!
    > The default *block* size for ext2 and ext3 is 1024 bytes.
    > Which has little to do with cluster size, except that the cluster size
    > has to be smaller than or equal to the block size.
    >
    >
    > J.


    Back in my Windows daze I built a video editing box... P4 3.0 HT, gig of
    1066 RAMBUS RIMM, RAID 0, etc. Formatted the drives with some
    nonsensical size (4MB?) clusters only to find there were no apps that
    would defrag it.
    Moving gig size files, my stopwatch wasn't accurate enough to measure
    the difference in write speed between the megacluster size and the same
    drives formatted using the default.

  8. Re: Reliability of file systems

    clay said:
    > Trevor Best wrote:
    > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:57:17 -0700
    > > ray wrote:
    > >
    > >> > I have never had a problem with ext3, ReiserFS or NTFS (unless
    > >> > I'm using the OS for which it was designed). Of course, there
    > >> > are serious concerns now about the future of the ReiserFS file
    > >> > system, since the author, Hans Reiser is going to trial for
    > >> > allegedly murdering his Russian wife.
    > >>
    > >> What's already out will not become less reliable whether he's
    > >> available or not. BTW - in prison he could have a lot of free time.

    > >
    > > They might only have Windows PCs though.
    > >

    >
    > Windows with bars on them...


    All Windows should be barred.

    Cybe R. Wizard
    --
    Nice computers don't go down.
    Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
    "The Barsoom Project"

  9. Re: Reliability of file systems

    > measekite wrote: *** and top-posted - fixed ***
    > B wrote:
    >
    >> I plan to put together a basic home server for backup purposes.
    >> I an not too fussed as to what OS it runs but I am concerned
    >> with the reliability of the file system. I have twice lost
    >> data to unexplained NTFS file system corruption and would like
    >> to know if there is any evidence that ext3 is more reliable
    >> which would alone be reason to make Linux the choice over
    >> Windows.

    >
    > I use both and cannot tell the difference. That does not mean
    > there is no difference and I too would like an answer to your
    > question. I have one local drive and two network drives using
    > ntfs. On the local drive I use ntfsconf3 to read and write. No
    > known problems. My Linux drive it ext3.


    Some of the latest file systems can handle NTFS systems. Older are
    not safe for writing.

    Please do not use HTML to post. Use plain text. HTML takes extra
    bandwidth and can carry dangerous content.

    Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
    with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
    irrelevant material. I fixed this one. See the following links:

    --



    (taming google)
    (newusers)



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2