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

List:       opensuse
Subject:    Re: [opensuse] Large disks in Opensuse 11
From:       "Carlos E. R." <robin.listas () telefonica ! net>
Date:       2009-05-13 15:12:52
Message-ID: alpine.LSU.2.00.0905131704390.15459 () nimrodel ! valinor
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Wednesday, 2009-05-13 at 15:27 +0200, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:

> 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?

Probably because it is bad taste to use the enemy's filesystem format >:-P

No, it is not so bad, specially if you use it to backup files, not for 
continuous use (fragmentation is not that big an issue, then). The 
problems are that there is a per file size limit of... was it 2 GiB or 4 
GiB? I never remember. And that it can not store Linux filesystem 
attributes and permissions. Another one is that Microsoft might one day 
exercise its patents rights over it (like it did with Tom-Tom recently).

> 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.

Not that I know, unless you intend to store video content (the size limit 
is a problem). In that case, XFS is preferable. On the other hand, if you 
want to share files with other (non Linux) machines, FAT has an edge.

By the way, I find NTFS support in Linux to be slow and cpu intensive. But 
it works.

- -- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E. R.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkoK43YACgkQtTMYHG2NR9W1JwCeK5atggicSQazNfNIPh3HvQmT
ZysAnRCH/ioj/+Xt7N/tX01TGL9SmiWC
=PMJE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
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]