| 1 |
Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:27:46 +0200 |
| 2 |
schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com>: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Am 30.08.2016 um 21:14 schrieb J. Roeleveld: |
| 5 |
> > On August 30, 2016 8:58:17 PM GMT+02:00, Volker Armin Hemmann |
| 6 |
> > <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> Am 30.08.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
| 8 |
> [...] |
| 9 |
> [...] |
| 10 |
> [...] |
| 11 |
> >> first |
| 12 |
> [...] |
| 13 |
> [...] |
| 14 |
> >> includes |
| 15 |
> [...] |
| 16 |
> [...] |
| 17 |
> [...] |
| 18 |
> [...] |
| 19 |
> >> because exfat does not work across gentoo systems. ext2 does. |
| 20 |
> > Exfat works when the drivers are installed. |
| 21 |
> > Same goes for ext2. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > It is possible to not have support for ext2/3 or 4 and still have a |
| 24 |
> > fully functional system. (Btrfs or zfs for the full system for |
| 25 |
> > instance) |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > When using UEFI boot, a vfat partition with support is required. |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > -- |
| 30 |
> > Joost |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> ext2 is on every system |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Not on mine... |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> , exfat not. ext2 is very stable, tested and |
| 37 |
> well aged. exfat is some fuse something crap. New, hardly tested and |
| 38 |
> unstable as it gets. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> And why use exfat if you use linux? It is just not needed at all. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
I consider ext2 not suitable for USB drives because it has no journal |
| 43 |
and can break horribly if accidentally removed without unmounting (or |
| 44 |
pulling before everything was written). |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
OTOH, I recommend against using filesystems with a fixed journal area |
| 47 |
on thumb drives. Some may be optimized for NTFS usage. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
A log structured filesystem (like f2fs, nilfs2) or one with wandering |
| 50 |
journals (like reiserfs) may be best - tho I cannot speak for them |
| 51 |
regarding accidental disconnects without unmounting first. One should |
| 52 |
test it. Reiserfs3 worked very well for me, much better than ext[23], |
| 53 |
when I once had to fight with a failing RAID controller (it just went |
| 54 |
offline). All reiserfs could be recovered by fsck, only a few files had |
| 55 |
wrong checksums, a few were missing - that system (different hardware |
| 56 |
of course) is still in use today but converted over to xfs because |
| 57 |
reiserfs is a really bad performer for parallel access. Ext[23] was |
| 58 |
totally borked, fsck had no chance to recover anything. I'd consider |
| 59 |
reiserfs3 mature. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Personally, I tend to using f2fs on thumb drives. Nilfs2 may be an |
| 62 |
option, too. But I never used that. I have no experience with f2fs on |
| 63 |
failing hardware, tho. But in the end: thumb drives aren't for |
| 64 |
important data anyway. So what counts is getting the best life time out |
| 65 |
of them. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
Regards, |
| 69 |
Kai |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
Replies to list-only preferred. |
Archives