Re: FAT32 vs NTFS
Oops. Looks like NTFS volumes mount as read-only even if you say to do
otherwise. So I guess that answers my question.
(Crosses fingers, hopes that FAT32 will work!)
-Andy
At 09:53 AM 3/2/2005, Andy Rowan wrote:
I've got a couple of external (firewire) hard drives that I want to use to
take backups offsite, and I want the drives to be recognizable by a
windows (2000 or xp) machine, so that if the place burns down or whatever,
and my linux box is gone, I can easily pop the backup back into place on a
windows machine. (Also that way if I'm working at home and discover I
want a file, I can connect the drive to my laptop.) I don't need to deal
with permissions or hard links or those kinds of things, because most of
the files are backups originating from windows machines in the first
place. So I figured I'd format the firewire drives with NTFS and mount
them on my linux machine (and use rsync to bring them up to date).
But then I came across something saying that writing to NTFS volumes from
linux is unreliable, but I wasn't sure if that was current info. Is it
still true? Should I go with FAT32 instead, is that safer? I'd prefer
NTFS, but only if I can count on it.
The linux computer I'd be using them with is a pentium 4 running Sarge
with a 2.6.8-2-686-smp kernel.
Reply to: