Hi all I am having a bit of a dilemma. No, I did not win the lottery and it's not about whether to watch the 9pm film or the 8:30 soap..... My rig now has three drives (I should update the 'My Computer' section....): 1 x 15GB Quantum 5400RPM IDE drive 1 x 20GB WD 5400RPM IDE drive 1 x 120GB Samsung SATA drive. I would like to have one drive for my Ubuntu, one for a 'token' Windows installation and one as storage/dumping/temp space. What, in your opinion, would be the best use of all three drives?
If it was me, i'd partiton the 120GB in two, one half for windows and one half for Ubuntu. The 20GB can be for storage and the 15GB for Temp
OOOOOhhhh..... Kinky! I never thought of that And I suppose the two smaller drives would have to be in FAT so I can read/write from both Linux and Windows..... Interesting......
Yeah well, in my eyes, you need the OS'es on the most reliable HDD. The 15GB is the oldest, therefore it makes sense to have it as TEMP storage. And yeah, i suppose you would have to have them in FAT. I'm not completely sure but that's my guess!
anti-Trend will know but I remember in a thread ninja fetus made about having a file storage computer AT said using Samba means you can read/write from both Windows and Linux...I may be wrong though...
My only concerns, really, are speed, accessibility and reliability. Any of the three would handle Linux or Windows with no problems. However, I think that Linux can only read NTFS where as it can read and write to FAT. Being an optimist, I would trust the Samsung over the Quantum as itis newer. So pelvis's idea sounds good and makes good sense. My original idea was to have Windows on the Quantum, Linux on the WD and use the Samsung as general space. However I think that I would be 'throwing away' performance hardware on idle space. If you see what I mean. Keep the suggestions coming..... Thanks you all!
Ooh Ooh, put windows on the Quantum, as it's the oldest, hopefully it'll die and take winows with it :crash: :stickout2: Just kidding Just do whatever sounds more efficient to you man!
Indeed, they use a file system called LVM (Logical Volume Manager). However, Linux developers are so concederate and helpful that they made it possible for Linux to be able to read and write to other file systems such as FAT and NTFS. Which is more than you can say for Bill's creation which cannot do the same for LVM. From what I have experienced so far, Ubuntu can mount NTFS partitions as read only. According to Ubuntu's HOW-TO, it can mount FAT partition as read and write.
You might partition one HDD as FAT32 in order to be a sort of file pool where you could share files between both OSes, but I wouldn't place an OS itself on a FAT32. It is a cheesy filesystem which is easily damaged, and will make your OS install last a shorter while. Use a good journalised filesystem like Reiser, XFS, or EXT3 for your Linux install. For Windows, use the best filesystem available for it. NTFS, isn't very good compared to Reiser or XFS, but it is better than FAT32 by a good amount.
I sort of made my decision now. I am really leaning towards using Linux full time and popping into windows only if I need to do something which I cannot or have not set-up to do yet, in linux. Also need to conceder things like gaming. I have got one or two games which I do not know if I can install on linux so I might have to keep them installed under windows. For those reasons, adding the fact that my house mates, those who live around me and I think are called wife and children (I really cannot remember now..... ), might still find Windows a safe haven from my experiments, I'm going to install LInux on my main SATA drive. Windows will go on the Quantum, drive. The WD will be used for a 'file-pool'. If the Quantum goes..... hell at least it had a good innings (5 years of constant use). The WD is a fairly young drive (as in usage) so I will keep it underused in case one of the others decides to call it a day. AT, I cannot remember Ubuntu offering me any other options apart from LVM. Was I not paying attention or do I have to do something special to format to Raiser, XFS or EXT3? Thanks again everyone......
I use Reiser 3 FS for linux, which is infact a pretty small partition, only 10GB but thats more than enough for now. My Windows partition is about 40G total, and I have a small FAT32 partition so I can use it to transfer files to and fro the OSs since Linux can't write to NTFS, only read.
Nope, that's not correct. You can write to NTFS using Captive NTFS, which is a kernel feautre that is normally compiled out by default. The reason for this is a good one -- writing to a corrupted NTFS partition can severely break it, and NTFS corrupts easier than one might think. MS works around this with some on-the-fly tricks during Windows operation, but we don't have the benefit of that information since their software is proprietary. So in conclusion, it is possible to write to NTFS but not typically prudent. It's best to use FAT32 for a neutral partition, since it is an open standard that Windows can read. LVM is a volume manager, not a filesystem in itself. Ubuntu uses the EXT3 filesystem by default, which is considered an extremely solid albeit slow filesystem. IIRC, EXT3 was indeed faster than NTFS, but isn't as fast as some other journalized filsystems. Reiser is the best of both worlds, being both tough and very speedy. It's not considered as stable or well accepted as EXT3 yet simply because it hasn't been around for as long. There may be some deeper technical reasons for this consensus, but I'm not experienced enough to know first hand; I've never experienced any filesystem corruption in Linux at all. This being stated, there is an alternate step in the initial configuration where you can do manual partitioning rather than automatic. In that stage, you can choose different filesystems besides just EXT3 and Linux Swap, the defaults. By the way, it sounds like your decisions for the treatment of your HDDs are well thought out, and I hope it serves you well. All the best, -AT
Yes I heard about that, but for those reasons never wanted to try if it there was a risk with the FS going byebye.
I've done it myself, but typically the risk outweighs the gain. Especially since 9/10 of the systems I've used captive ntfs on warned of some corruption. :x: I usually only use it for attempted Windows rescues after the data has already been archived. You can't break something that's already broken.
