On 05/11/2012 10:22 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 08:18:35PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> How is that ext* special? You said "Unix systems" there are lots more >> FSs more common to "Unix" systems > > Well, because FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Hurd do support ext2/3*. So if you > want a file system which is higher performance than VFAT, and > supported on Unix-like systems beyond Linux, ext* is the best choice > in a number of cases. > That was a rhetorical questions. I meant ext* is not special. There are plenty of other FFs that are common to unix systems. > As far as NTFS is concerned, the *BSD's can only support NTFS via > FUSE, and I've been suspicious about the quality of our ntfs support > under Linux --- we don't have a full-featured fsck for it, for > example. I'm at least not comfortable using NTFS on my personal > machines. (Last I checked there were all sorts of asterisks about > data corruption if the system crashed before Linux mounted it, since > apparently NTFS's logging subsystem was never reverse-engineered.) > No! on all modern Linux distro's ntfs (ntfs-3g) is supported with that infamous FUSE driver. The Kernel driver is long dead. The same FUSE driver is also used under *BSD and officially supported by Apple in OSX. Last benchmarks I saw where Faster then ext2 and in-par with ext3, MetaData faster, IO slower then ext3. Stability is very good and I never had an issue, on any of the above systems. There is also a very good fsck and a suit of other tools under the same ntfs-3g project. To date I have fixed 10s of friends/family Windows machines with a Linux rescue USB-stick, I mean machines that would even boot. >> As a maintainer of ext4 filesystem which is the official system for >> Linux in many distrows, still. Please resists any such crap. >> User "convenience-vs-security was never a geol of Unix. > > Did you look at the proposal I made? By making it something where the > file system is explicitly marked as "for interchange", it avoids the > security problem (as much as you can when you put your unencrypted > data on removable, portable storage which could be lost or stolen). > > Sure, if you don't need to operate on the data as a mounted file > system, tar or cpio or zip is a good choice for maximal portability. > But if you want to do something like rsync on a portable SSD, Again, for the last time, you are the maintainer, you do what you understand, I hope Linus or someone can make it more clear than me. There is nothing special about USB sticks and ext* filesystems it is the same old "shared files" problem. If you are not under a single NIS domain, then these are different users. If files need to be shared they need to sit in the proper CHMODed directory and bits. I have at home a bittorent network directory for the all family, So the first time I set it up I had to ssh into the server and fix the permissions. That was easy enough listen to learn. For the last time and I'm off this for good: "Shared files" problem is not solved by mount options. Been there done that <snip> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
