4 ms·

I was actually going to ask that... Is XFS a good "portable" filesystem across GNU/Linux and different BSD flavors? Native support or through FUSE? The use case

I was actually going to ask that... Is XFS a good "portable" filesystem across GNU/Linux and different BSD flavors? Native support or through FUSE? The use case are USB drives. I don't mind losing visibility on Windows or MacOS, just to work flawlessly between these without major efforts. Edit: Added some comments.

mustache_kimono 3y ago
ZFS is really one of the only games in town AFAIK for serious filesystems. UFS might also work? Of course there is always exFAT, etc.
- liendolucas 3y ago
  I could be wrong but I didn't go with UFS because apparently there are significant implementation differences among BSDs. I was kind of surprised to discover that.
  - toast0 3y ago
    FreeBSD and NetBSD essentially derive from the same source, 4.4BSD-Lite from March 1994. OpenBSD is a fork of NetBSD from 1995. There's been a lot of divergence, and there's not really anything pushing towards convergence. FreeBSD modified UFS to meet their needs and desires and other BSDs went in other directions. There wasn't a lot of clammoring for a disk based data format for data interchange, so there's not a big reason to keep the divergent UFSes compatible. Exchange data via networks or tape archives or tars written to block devices or tarfiles on a widely recognized filesystem (msdos fat will do). This pattern of a shared source and divergent development isn't super common. It's pretty rare commercially, and few opensource projects have forks that diverge and stay active for decades.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      As a BSD user I think the divergence is a good thing. it means there are substantial differences which allows you to pick an OS that's really tailored to your usecase. In the Linux world there's mainly just userland differences. I like it the BSD way. Of course Linux sees much more commercial input which I consider a bad thing and one reason I use FreeBSD so much. But for commercial interests it's a good thing to have as much in common as possible to have more potential customers.
yyyk 3y ago
The BSDs support ext2fs in kernel, that should work. FAT would work too of course.

mustache_kimono 3y ago

ZFS is really one of the only games in town AFAIK for serious filesystems. UFS might also work? Of course there is always exFAT, etc.

liendolucas 3y ago
I could be wrong but I didn't go with UFS because apparently there are significant implementation differences among BSDs. I was kind of surprised to discover that.
- toast0 3y ago
  FreeBSD and NetBSD essentially derive from the same source, 4.4BSD-Lite from March 1994. OpenBSD is a fork of NetBSD from 1995. There's been a lot of divergence, and there's not really anything pushing towards convergence. FreeBSD modified UFS to meet their needs and desires and other BSDs went in other directions. There wasn't a lot of clammoring for a disk based data format for data interchange, so there's not a big reason to keep the divergent UFSes compatible. Exchange data via networks or tape archives or tars written to block devices or tarfiles on a widely recognized filesystem (msdos fat will do). This pattern of a shared source and divergent development isn't super common. It's pretty rare commercially, and few opensource projects have forks that diverge and stay active for decades.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    As a BSD user I think the divergence is a good thing. it means there are substantial differences which allows you to pick an OS that's really tailored to your usecase. In the Linux world there's mainly just userland differences. I like it the BSD way. Of course Linux sees much more commercial input which I consider a bad thing and one reason I use FreeBSD so much. But for commercial interests it's a good thing to have as much in common as possible to have more potential customers.

yyyk 3y ago

The BSDs support ext2fs in kernel, that should work. FAT would work too of course.