[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       opensuse
Subject:    Re: [opensuse] Large disks in Opensuse 11
From:       Randall R Schulz <rschulz () sonic ! net>
Date:       2009-05-13 13:38:09
Message-ID: 200905130638.09720.rschulz () sonic ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday May 13 2009, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
> Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > On Wednesday May 13 2009, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
> >> ...
>
> >> Feel free to comment, but before I swap the drives in order to
> >> find out, I would like to receive suggestions as to what file
> >> system I should choose.
> >
> > Personally, I'm in the XFS crowd. FAT would be the only really bad
> > choice. If Windows interoperability is a factor, then NTFS is your
> > only good option. And, of course, if you need to interoperate with
> > antique Windows systems that have only FAT, then you really have no
> > choice.
>
> I have not yet understood why FAT is such a terribly bad choice. Is
> there a greater risk of data corruption and loss with that file
> system? By the way, NTFS is no option, SuSE 11.0 will not format with
> that one. If there are no decisive arguments in disfavor of FAT I
> will probably choose that.

FAT is wasteful of space (increasingly so as the volume capacity grows), 
prone to fragmentation, has no journal and has only a very minimal 
permission model, lacking any notion of user identification or file 
ownership. I forget what file name restrictions it imposes, but I'm 
pretty sure not all of Unix's valid names will work there.

FAT wasn't much in its day and it is now very archaic.


> ...
>
> Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway


Randall Schulz
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]