6 ms·

My dream linux filesystem is still a lean Windows-compatible filesystem. I have had the linux kernel ntfs driver corrupt data more than once, so I use it read

My dream linux filesystem is still a lean Windows-compatible filesystem. I have had the linux kernel ntfs driver corrupt data more than once, so I use it read only mode. BTRFS is slow and unofficial on Windows, and its not that fast in linux to begin with. F2FS would be perfect, and Samsung claimed they were building a Windows driver, but it never materialized.

mbreese 3y ago
> I have had the linux kernel ntfs driver corrupt data more than once, so I use it read only mode. Back when I needed something like this (over decade ago?), the Linux NTFS driver had many warnings to only use it read only. For kernel tied FSs, this is probably a good thought. But isn’t there a Windows driver for ext4 (or ext2 at least, which is compatible with ext4)? Honestly, I’m not sure I would try to write mount a filesystem from a different OS. Instead, I’d probably try to run the foreign OS in a VM (attached to the drive/image) and then export it over NFS/CIFS. This should work both directions and lets each OS deal with their own FS.
- kjs3 3y ago
  There's been a free Windows ext2 driver since the Win2k days[1]. It's not remotely perfect, and doesn't look like it's much maintained any more, but I've used it many times. There are numerous other offerings, both free-ish[2] and commercial[3]. Of course, now you can mount ext[234] on Windows using WSL these days, so it's kinuva moot point.[4] [1] https://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd/ [2] e.g. https://www.diskgenius.com/ https://www.diskgenius.com/ [3] e.g. https://www.paragon-drivers.com/en/lfswin/ https://www.paragon-drivers.com/en/lfswin/ [4] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/access-linux-filesystems-in-windows-and-wsl-2/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/access-linux-file...
PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
Linux and Windows has very different needs when it comes to filesystems.
diath 3y ago
On the contrary, I have been using ntfs3g driver in rw mode for years without issues.
- saghm 3y ago
  That's the userspace drive for NTFS rather than the kernel one, right? I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to filesystems, but my understanding is that the tradeoff is lower performance.
  - pengaru 3y ago
    The kernel received a new ntfs driver relatively recently, it was kind of a big deal (in terms of drama) when it happened: https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/02/paragon_ntfs_linux_kernel/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/02/paragon_ntfs_linux_ke... I don't recall what, if any, relation the Paragon ntfs support has to ntfs-3g. I do recall when ntfs-3g was the new kid on the block, it was the only alternative for read-write ntfs support vs. paying Paragon software for their proprietary (at the time) kernel driver.
    - saghm 3y ago
      Yeah, that fits with what I remember. I read the parent comment talking about unreliability being about the kernel driver rather than the userspace one, so I wanted to verify if the response about ntfs-3g was even talking about the same thing or not.
baq 3y ago
Nowadays if you have wsl2 capable windows, you can use whatever the bundled Linux kernel supports: mount in Linux shell, access through windows with \\wsl$\.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  Last I checked, it only works for whole disks. You can't mount a linux partition on a disk sharing your Windows install.
dsr_ 3y ago
My dream Linux filesystem is a distributable ZFS with automatic tiering and advance notification of cache invalidation. I guess we have different dreams.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Well yeah, obviously different people have different dreams depending on what they value. Mine is ZFS but with the licensing situation fixed so it can be mainlined into Linux, or BTRFS but trustworthy and with better cross-platform support. Though I did also once sketch out a distributed filesystem that would combine the features of ZFS (ui, stability), BTRFS (heterogeneous pools), minio (distributed, erasure coding), ceph (distributed, FUSE+NFS+native kernel driver) to give me one ultimate filesystem that could scale from 1 disk in 1 drive to a single filesystem across dozens of machines and hundreds of drives. (Mostly, I noticed that at a high level, a lot of filesystems and sync tools boil down to "slice up your files into blocks, append a checksum, and then save/mirror/stream those blocks wherever you need to" - if you squint, BTRFS and bittorrent are really similar)
  - ilc 3y ago
    BTRFS is not as bad as it was. People often forget all the edge conditions ZFS has also. (Of which I got caught by many in my day.) That said, BTRFS is also not the rampant layering violation that ZFS is, for the good and the bad of that statement in so many ways. The way ARC and L2ARC is handled... is just crazy from a modern prospective. They may have cleaned it up since I last looked, but I tend to doubt it. It was pretty baked in. BTRFS / ZFS really share 0 with bittorrent other than checksumming for integrity. That's it. Otherwise they are so different they might as well come from different planets. ceph has a ways to go. It'll get there, but distributed filesystems are hard. As a wise man said to me: Normal file systems take ~10-15 years to mature. Distributed ones take even longer. So ceph... may be getting usable, but I'm not sure I'd bet the farm on cephfs. (Their S3 stuff maybe. But that's much simpler.) minio is a great example of a product not trying to be everything to everyone... and succeeding. Kudos to them and their team.
    - 3y ago
jtriangle 3y ago
I haven't had any glaring issues with the current kernel NTFS drivers. They used to be a big problem back in the day, but, as far as I know or can tell, they're production ready at this point. Or, well, as production ready as NTFS is...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mbreese 3y ago

> I have had the linux kernel ntfs driver corrupt data more than once, so I use it read only mode. Back when I needed something like this (over decade ago?), the Linux NTFS driver had many warnings to only use it read only. For kernel tied FSs, this is probably a good thought. But isn’t there a Windows driver for ext4 (or ext2 at least, which is compatible with ext4)? Honestly, I’m not sure I would try to write mount a filesystem from a different OS. Instead, I’d probably try to run the foreign OS in a VM (attached to the drive/image) and then export it over NFS/CIFS. This should work both directions and lets each OS deal with their own FS.

kjs3 3y ago
There's been a free Windows ext2 driver since the Win2k days[1]. It's not remotely perfect, and doesn't look like it's much maintained any more, but I've used it many times. There are numerous other offerings, both free-ish[2] and commercial[3]. Of course, now you can mount ext[234] on Windows using WSL these days, so it's kinuva moot point.[4] [1] https://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd/ [2] e.g. https://www.diskgenius.com/ https://www.diskgenius.com/ [3] e.g. https://www.paragon-drivers.com/en/lfswin/ https://www.paragon-drivers.com/en/lfswin/ [4] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/access-linux-filesystems-in-windows-and-wsl-2/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/access-linux-file...

PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago

Linux and Windows has very different needs when it comes to filesystems.

diath 3y ago

On the contrary, I have been using ntfs3g driver in rw mode for years without issues.

saghm 3y ago
That's the userspace drive for NTFS rather than the kernel one, right? I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to filesystems, but my understanding is that the tradeoff is lower performance.
- pengaru 3y ago
  The kernel received a new ntfs driver relatively recently, it was kind of a big deal (in terms of drama) when it happened: https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/02/paragon_ntfs_linux_kernel/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/02/paragon_ntfs_linux_ke... I don't recall what, if any, relation the Paragon ntfs support has to ntfs-3g. I do recall when ntfs-3g was the new kid on the block, it was the only alternative for read-write ntfs support vs. paying Paragon software for their proprietary (at the time) kernel driver.
  - saghm 3y ago
    Yeah, that fits with what I remember. I read the parent comment talking about unreliability being about the kernel driver rather than the userspace one, so I wanted to verify if the response about ntfs-3g was even talking about the same thing or not.

baq 3y ago

Nowadays if you have wsl2 capable windows, you can use whatever the bundled Linux kernel supports: mount in Linux shell, access through windows with \\wsl$\.

brucethemoose2 3y ago
Last I checked, it only works for whole disks. You can't mount a linux partition on a disk sharing your Windows install.

dsr_ 3y ago

My dream Linux filesystem is a distributable ZFS with automatic tiering and advance notification of cache invalidation. I guess we have different dreams.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
Well yeah, obviously different people have different dreams depending on what they value. Mine is ZFS but with the licensing situation fixed so it can be mainlined into Linux, or BTRFS but trustworthy and with better cross-platform support. Though I did also once sketch out a distributed filesystem that would combine the features of ZFS (ui, stability), BTRFS (heterogeneous pools), minio (distributed, erasure coding), ceph (distributed, FUSE+NFS+native kernel driver) to give me one ultimate filesystem that could scale from 1 disk in 1 drive to a single filesystem across dozens of machines and hundreds of drives. (Mostly, I noticed that at a high level, a lot of filesystems and sync tools boil down to "slice up your files into blocks, append a checksum, and then save/mirror/stream those blocks wherever you need to" - if you squint, BTRFS and bittorrent are really similar)
- ilc 3y ago
  BTRFS is not as bad as it was. People often forget all the edge conditions ZFS has also. (Of which I got caught by many in my day.) That said, BTRFS is also not the rampant layering violation that ZFS is, for the good and the bad of that statement in so many ways. The way ARC and L2ARC is handled... is just crazy from a modern prospective. They may have cleaned it up since I last looked, but I tend to doubt it. It was pretty baked in. BTRFS / ZFS really share 0 with bittorrent other than checksumming for integrity. That's it. Otherwise they are so different they might as well come from different planets. ceph has a ways to go. It'll get there, but distributed filesystems are hard. As a wise man said to me: Normal file systems take ~10-15 years to mature. Distributed ones take even longer. So ceph... may be getting usable, but I'm not sure I'd bet the farm on cephfs. (Their S3 stuff maybe. But that's much simpler.) minio is a great example of a product not trying to be everything to everyone... and succeeding. Kudos to them and their team.
  - 3y ago

jtriangle 3y ago

I haven't had any glaring issues with the current kernel NTFS drivers. They used to be a big problem back in the day, but, as far as I know or can tell, they're production ready at this point. Or, well, as production ready as NTFS is...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]