Hi all
Looking for a file system (Read and Write) that is supported by Puppy (Slacko 6.4 32 bit), Mac (el Capitan and OSX) and Windows (7 and 10).
I need to format an external USB3 1TB drive to be able to transfer data between these OS'es.
Can't use FAT32 due to the 4GB file size limit (some files are as big as 100GB), exFAT works with Mac and Win but not Puppy,
Mac journalled (HFS+) is no go on Win and read only in Puppy.
NTFS is not supported under Mac.
Any suggestions?
Thanks.
Pete
Common file system for Puppy, Mac and Win?
Ex-Fat works in Fatdog64. Copying, moving files works (tested by me).
mkfs.exfat command can format the exfat drive. (not tested by me but available)
In other pups installing exfat-fuse and exfat-utils packages would do the trick.
Full support for exfat on linux (ex. moving, expanding, shrinking a partition) can't be achieved because of patent problem. (I read this somewhere)
mkfs.exfat command can format the exfat drive. (not tested by me but available)
In other pups installing exfat-fuse and exfat-utils packages would do the trick.
Full support for exfat on linux (ex. moving, expanding, shrinking a partition) can't be achieved because of patent problem. (I read this somewhere)
Ahh yes UDF.
Here's an old thread where I did mention it but never got around to test.
I saw this blog post about UDF drive creation...
http://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article93/usb-udf
Maybe it will help you Pete.
Hi musher0 and drunkjedi
UDF seems like a great idea, but sadly reading the comments in the second link that drunkjedi posted, makes me nervous to use it.
i.e. Not very widespread, possible 69GB limit on Linux and often confusing the heck out of Windows systems.
The best option so far is NTFS although no support for it under Mac.
UDF seems like a great idea, but sadly reading the comments in the second link that drunkjedi posted, makes me nervous to use it.
i.e. Not very widespread, possible 69GB limit on Linux and often confusing the heck out of Windows systems.
The best option so far is NTFS although no support for it under Mac.
@nic007
Never had a problem with ntfs under Linux and most of the files I use are huge, some up to 100GB and average between 2 and 10GB.
FAT32 besides the file size limitations, tends to get very fragmented after a while, hence my dislike of it.
Anyways, NTFS is still the best option (IMO) so far.
At least I can transfer very big files between 2 of the 3 OS'es.
EDIT:
Found this:
http://www.tuxera.com/products/tuxera-ntfs-for-mac/
and at $31, it ain't bad.
Never had a problem with ntfs under Linux and most of the files I use are huge, some up to 100GB and average between 2 and 10GB.
FAT32 besides the file size limitations, tends to get very fragmented after a while, hence my dislike of it.
Anyways, NTFS is still the best option (IMO) so far.
At least I can transfer very big files between 2 of the 3 OS'es.
EDIT:
Found this:
http://www.tuxera.com/products/tuxera-ntfs-for-mac/
and at $31, it ain't bad.
I have 3 partitions. One small ntfs (8 gig) for Windows XP and its programs, a big ntfs partition for my data and a small ext3 (4 gigs) for my linux OS's. This seems to work well for me. When running linux I access the data partition for reading almost exclusively but also do save, copy, paste the odd thing. For major operations like copying, moving, saving huge files involving the ntfs partitions, I rather use Windows.
Aha I see what you mean as regards Linux and NTFS.
Yes, I have to agree that Linux should live on a Linux file system.
As regards moving, copying, deleting files on a NTFS drive, never had an issue with Linux.
My Linux set-ups are always ext3 (internal HDD) for the actual O.S. and various removable HDD's for reading and writing data.
Yes, I have to agree that Linux should live on a Linux file system.
As regards moving, copying, deleting files on a NTFS drive, never had an issue with Linux.
My Linux set-ups are always ext3 (internal HDD) for the actual O.S. and various removable HDD's for reading and writing data.
I have 2, 100 GB NTFS partitions, on my PC for last 3.5 years.
Not formatted or defragged etc since then as I don't use windows anymore.
One is almost full at 90GB, other is filled upto 40GB.
Have few 4GB plus files, mostly Ubuntu ISOs.
I haven't noticed any problems yet.
I exclusively use Fatdog.
If I see any problems I may convert them to ext4.
What kind of problems should I expect?
Not formatted or defragged etc since then as I don't use windows anymore.
One is almost full at 90GB, other is filled upto 40GB.
Have few 4GB plus files, mostly Ubuntu ISOs.
I haven't noticed any problems yet.
I exclusively use Fatdog.
If I see any problems I may convert them to ext4.
What kind of problems should I expect?
NTFS has one issue.
Fragmentation.
How much will it fragment?
Depends on how much writes, deletes, rewrites, etc.... over a period of time.
If all you do is write data, one time, to store it on a NTFS format,
nothing there to fragment.
If all you do is read that data, nothing to fragment.
If you write data, delete data, write data, delete data, etc..., there is a constant changing of what locations on the drive have areas of free space. You will get data written into different areas and they will not necessarily be next to each other.
Thus fragmented.
I have a NTFS formatted partition I store data on.
I write to it all the time, but do very little deleting.
I have checked it with Windows defrag program.
The program always says "0" fragmentation found.
Fragmentation.
How much will it fragment?
Depends on how much writes, deletes, rewrites, etc.... over a period of time.
If all you do is write data, one time, to store it on a NTFS format,
nothing there to fragment.
If all you do is read that data, nothing to fragment.
If you write data, delete data, write data, delete data, etc..., there is a constant changing of what locations on the drive have areas of free space. You will get data written into different areas and they will not necessarily be next to each other.
Thus fragmented.
I have a NTFS formatted partition I store data on.
I write to it all the time, but do very little deleting.
I have checked it with Windows defrag program.
The program always says "0" fragmentation found.
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
NTFS is no different to ANY other file system in that respect - nor can it be.
The difference is that SOME other file systems do automatic defragmentation and consolidation.
There is no single file system that solves all the potential problems - in fact NtfS tends to do better than most.
The difference is that SOME other file systems do automatic defragmentation and consolidation.
There is no single file system that solves all the potential problems - in fact NtfS tends to do better than most.
"Just think of it as leaving early to avoid the rush" - T Pratchett