LinuxQuestions.org - NTFS write support - no longer "experimental" ?

- Linux - General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/)

- - NTFS write support - no longer "experimental" ? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/ntfs-write-support-no-longer-experimental-158157/)

NTFS write support - no longer "experimental" ?

As I went through my menuconfig for a 2.6.4 build I noticed that the "experimental" tag had been dropped. Does this imply that NTFS is now writable safely ?

I didn't think so. Although there is software for Linux that allows writing to NTFS (it requires you to copy files from a Windows system though).

I think you might try it by mounted NTFS partition.Because I know if you support NTFS partition writable, it is dangerous.

Yes, it is now safe; however it is extremely limited. I don't remember the specifics, but it's something like only being able to work with/manipulate existing files on an NTFS partition...

I believe the specifics is that you can't change the file size at all, so it has to have the same amount of bytes. However, I know that I can send stuff from a Linux box to a networked NTFS computer. At least, I think I remember doing that at one time lately.... I believe this mostly just applies to mounted partitions, not networked ones.

Yes, this only applies to mounted NTFS partitions, since a NTFS volume written to via Samba isn't written by the Linux machine at all. Samba just sends the file to the Windows machine, at which point Windows itself actually writes the file to the HDD.

NTFS 'write' support for 2.6.4 is limited to overwriting or editing existing files while maintaining the same file size. You may not create files or folders or remove them. I still think this is a decent step in the right direction for ntfs supposrt under linux.

Quote:

Originally posted by thew00t
NTFS 'write' support for 2.6.4 is limited to overwriting or editing existing files while maintaining the same file size. You may not create files or folders or remove them. I still think this is a decent step in the right direction for ntfs supposrt under linux.

I still don't really see how you can properly edit a file though, if it has to have the same number of bytes as the original....

Quote:

Originally posted by r_jensen11
I still don't really see how you can properly edit a file though, if it has to have the same number of bytes as the original....

I was thinking the same thing. I edited two lines of html in one of my pages and the file sizes were slightly different. Doesn't matter to me anyway, as I ditched windows and ntfs long ago, but it is nice to see that the kernel devs can overcome such challenges. Reverse engineering every m$ concoction born can't be an easy task ;)

The traditional solution still applies:

Have a fat32 partition for read/write and read from all the ntfs partitions you like.

:)

I had the setup for a while and it worked great, until I got rid of windows;)
+-linuxhd(80G):
-+boot
-+root
-+home
+-winhd(26):
-+(2.5)G-vfat
-+the rest ntf

It was my understanding that by using a FAT32 partition simultaneously with an NTFS partition, you loose some of the NTFS advantage, for instance, including but not limited to the system defaulting to FAT32's 4 gig file size limitation even on the NTFS partition. Can anybody confirm this?

I love Linux's tweakability, but I cannot flush XP entirely (nor do I really want to). I occasionally make dvd isos and reeeally big movie files, many of which are too large for FAT32.

My optimal configuration would be to keep all of my stuff on the XP NTFS partition, but be able to administer the system (including file/directory creation and full file manipulation, such as existing Office documents) from Linux as well as I can from XP, in effect making XP Linux's bitch.

Put more simply, I want two partitions: an NTFS and Linux, and I want Linux to be able to fully read/write to the NTFS. Can it be done?

I don't think FAT32 has a limit on the partition size, I think that's more of a FAT8 or FAT16 quality there. The thing with FAT32 is that after 4 or 8GB, I forget which, it becomes more wasteful of space. Like I think an 80GB FAT32 partition would only have something like 72GB of available writing space.

i know the vfat drive was fine, if the limit is 4G, that must of been what I set it??.... I wasn't aware of that, is this really true?

Here's what I got from a google search that landed me at MS's website:

Quote:

Size Limitations in NTFS and FAT File Systems
Each file system supports a maximum volume size, file size, and number of files per volume. Because FAT16 and FAT32 volumes are limited to 4 GB and 32 GB respectively, you must use NTFS to create volumes larger than 32 GB. If you use FAT16 or FAT32 in computers that start multiple operating systems, you must note the following size limitations:

FAT volumes smaller than 16 MB are formatted as FAT12.
FAT16 volumes larger than 2 GB are not accessible from computers running MS-DOS, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, and many other operating systems. This limitation occurs because these operating systems do not support cluster sizes larger than 32 KB, which results in the 2 GB limit.
In theory, FAT32 volumes can be about 8 terabytes; however, the maximum FAT32 volume size that Windows XP Professional can format is 32 GB. Therefore, you must use NTFS to format volumes larger than 32 GB. However, Windows XP Professional can read and write to larger FAT32 volumes formatted by other operating systems.
If you create multidisk volumes such as spanned or striped volumes, the amount of space used on each disk is applied to the total size of the volume. Therefore, to create a multidisk volume that is larger than 32 GB, you must use NTFS.