[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FAT32 vs NTFS

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 12:33 pm, Andy Rowan wrote:
> At 12:13 PM 3/2/2005, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > > 1. Use ext3 on the firewire drive, and lose the ability to plug it into
> > > a windows computer.
> > > 2. Stick with fat32 but abandon rsync and go with something involving
> > > tar. 3. Use two different firewire drives, one with fat32 for windows
> > > backups and one with ext3 for linux backups.
> >
> >What about backing up the Linux files to a zip archive of some type?  That
> >way
> >the filenames will remain the same internally.  It won't help when those
> > same files are extracted for Windows, but it might be easier to create a
> > work-around, and the Linux filenames will stay the same for Linux use.
> Well, I want to avoid the tar or zip step for a couple of reasons.  One is
> that with rsync on the individual files, I can freshen the backup in a
> matter of a couple of minutes and with no effort.  The other is just that I
> like the idea of being able to browse easily through the files on the
> backup device, instead of having to open up archive files.

Not to debate, but rsync can compress files.  I don't know about other 
browsers, but Konqueror browses through most archives, just as if they were a 
directory, and I recall doing something similar on XP.

> But actually, when I stepped away from the computer and had a chance to
> think, I came up with option 3b: put two partitions onto the one firewire
> drive, one fat32 and one ext3, and put the windows backups onto the fat32
> and the linux ones onto the ext3.  So I'm liking that idea.

That sounds like the best solution of all!

> If I repartition the external drive, and put the fat32 partition first,
> then windows will just ignore the ext3 partition, right?  I'm about to find
> out.

I would hope so.  PartEd or something similar should do that.  I'd do it from 
Linux, then check to make sure Windows sees the FAT32 partition before I use 


> -Andy

Reply to: