Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #688258 > unrolled thread

Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-27 22:20 +0000
    Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-03-27 18:26 -0400
    Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-03-27 22:26 +0000
      Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-27 20:25 -0400
        Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-28 20:00 +1100
          Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ  <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 06:14 -0700
        Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-28 21:23 +0000
          Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-29 00:29 -0400
            Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-29 06:43 +0000
              Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-29 03:18 -0400
                Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-29 22:17 +0000
          Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-03-29 00:29 -0500
            Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-29 06:43 +0000
              Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-29 03:21 -0400
                Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-29 22:13 +0000
    Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-03-28 10:40 +0000
      Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-28 09:31 -0400
      Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-29 00:57 +0000
        Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-29 00:38 -0400
          Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-29 11:46 +0000
          Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-29 22:20 +0000
            Re: Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS? Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-29 23:42 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#688258 — Is Microsoft Trying To Revive ReFS?

Seems Microsoft is bringing back the option for ordinary Windows users
to format volumes as ReFS
<https://www.tomshardware.com/software/windows/new-advanced-filesystem-format-option-found-in-windows-11-preview-build-refs-supports-up-to-35-petabytes>.

This filesystem made its first appearance years ago, but then
Microsoft began removing the option for using it from various
non-“Enterprise” versions of Windows where it had been introduced.

NTFS is certainly showing its age. But it’s not clear that ReFS is
really enough to take Windows forward. It seems a bit lacklustre
compared to the options that have long been available on Linux, for
example.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#688259

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>Seems Microsoft is bringing back the option for ordinary Windows users
>to format volumes as ReFS
><https://www.tomshardware.com/software/windows/new-advanced-filesystem-format-option-found-in-windows-11-preview-build-refs-supports-up-to-35-petabytes>.
>
>This filesystem made its first appearance years ago, but then
>Microsoft began removing the option for using it from various
>non-“Enterprise” versions of Windows where it had been introduced.
>
>NTFS is certainly showing its age. But it’s not clear that ReFS is
>really enough to take Windows forward. It seems a bit lacklustre
>compared to the options that have long been available on Linux, for
>example.


As the saying goes, they can keep their Winblows M$ crapware.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688260

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:20:00 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vs4iug$186dc$1@dont-email.me>:

> Seems Microsoft is bringing back the option for ordinary Windows users
> to format volumes as ReFS
> <https://www.tomshardware.com/software/windows/new-advanced-filesystem-
format-option-found-in-windows-11-preview-build-refs-supports-up-to-35-
petabytes>.
> 
> This filesystem made its first appearance years ago, but then Microsoft
> began removing the option for using it from various non-“Enterprise”
> versions of Windows where it had been introduced.
> 
> NTFS is certainly showing its age. But it’s not clear that ReFS is
> really enough to take Windows forward. It seems a bit lacklustre
> compared to the options that have long been available on Linux, for
> example.

I reported on ReFS a month or two ago, when I tried it with my (then)
new Windows 11 Pro Workstation virtual host.

It wasn't resizable.  I wrote it off as a primitive toy, and reformated
the partition with NTFS.

-- 
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
   OS: Linux 6.14.0 Release: Mint 22.1 Mem: 258G
   "Join Taglines Anonymous. We can help."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688263

On Thu, 3/27/2025 6:26 PM, vallor wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:20:00 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vs4iug$186dc$1@dont-email.me>:
> 
>> Seems Microsoft is bringing back the option for ordinary Windows users
>> to format volumes as ReFS
>> <https://www.tomshardware.com/software/windows/new-advanced-filesystem-
> format-option-found-in-windows-11-preview-build-refs-supports-up-to-35-
> petabytes>.
>>
>> This filesystem made its first appearance years ago, but then Microsoft
>> began removing the option for using it from various non-“Enterprise”
>> versions of Windows where it had been introduced.
>>
>> NTFS is certainly showing its age. But it’s not clear that ReFS is
>> really enough to take Windows forward. It seems a bit lacklustre
>> compared to the options that have long been available on Linux, for
>> example.
> 
> I reported on ReFS a month or two ago, when I tried it with my (then)
> new Windows 11 Pro Workstation virtual host.
> 
> It wasn't resizable.  I wrote it off as a primitive toy, and reformated
> the partition with NTFS.
> 

It's got a lotta versions, but I bet not much has changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReFS

   3.14: Default version formatted by Windows 11 (build 26047 and newer).[23]

And yeah, I just bought a 35 petabyte hard drive yesterday.
What a coincidence :-)

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688292

On 28/03/2025 11:25 am, Paul wrote:

<Snip>

> It's got a lotta versions, but I bet not much has changed.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReFS
> 
>     3.14: Default version formatted by Windows 11 (build 26047 and newer).[23]
> 
> And yeah, I just bought a 35 petabyte hard drive yesterday.
> What a coincidence :-)
> 
>     Paul

"petabyte"!! 35,000,000,000,000,000!! WOW!!

Is this on a personal Computer/Laptop or on a Server??

In either case ..... WOW!!
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688300

Daniel70 wrote on 3/28/2025 2:00 AM:
> On 28/03/2025 11:25 am, Paul wrote:
> 
> <Snip>
> 
>> It's got a lotta versions, but I bet not much has changed.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReFS
>>
>>     3.14: Default version formatted by Windows 11 (build 26047 and 
>> newer).[23]
>>
>> And yeah, I just bought a 35 petabyte hard drive yesterday.
>> What a coincidence :-)
>>
>>     Paul
> 
> "petabyte"!! 35,000,000,000,000,000!! WOW!!
> 
> Is this on a personal Computer/Laptop or on a Server??
> 
> In either case ..... WOW!!

Naivete warning :)

ReFS supports a max file size of 35 PB....but the 35 PB HD purchase 
occurred  'in a pipe dream'


-- 
...w¡ñ§±¤ñ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688328

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:25:31 -0400, Paul wrote:

> And yeah, I just bought a 35 petabyte hard drive yesterday.
> What a coincidence :-)

In Linux, we can have volumes spanning multiple physical drives, using 
technologies like LVM (not to be confused with LLVM).

Not sure that Windows has anything like LVM, though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688340

On Fri, 3/28/2025 5:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:25:31 -0400, Paul wrote:
> 
>> And yeah, I just bought a 35 petabyte hard drive yesterday.
>> What a coincidence :-)
> 
> In Linux, we can have volumes spanning multiple physical drives, using 
> technologies like LVM (not to be confused with LLVM).
> 
> Not sure that Windows has anything like LVM, though.
> 

You would need to find a server group, to discover best practice.
There is Storage Spaces. and Veritas Dynamic Disk allows some
virtual volumes to be constructed.

You can't really ask an AI to set up your disks either,
without answering questions about what the end use is. You
can include parity disks in an archival pool, but for write speed
adding parity would be a mistake.

   [Picture]   < suspect server is under attack by scraping AI bots... >

    https://i.postimg.cc/h4bL44cT/storage-spaces-demo.gif

It's more fun unwinding those, than preparing one. As you
would expect, it makes a mess.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688351

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:29:49 -0400, Paul wrote:

> On Fri, 3/28/2025 5:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:25:31 -0400, Paul wrote:
>> 
>>> And yeah, I just bought a 35 petabyte hard drive yesterday.
>>> What a coincidence :-)
>> 
>> In Linux, we can have volumes spanning multiple physical drives, using
>> technologies like LVM (not to be confused with LLVM).
>> 
>> Not sure that Windows has anything like LVM, though.
>> 
> You would need to find a server group, to discover best practice.
> There is Storage Spaces. and Veritas Dynamic Disk allows some virtual
> volumes to be constructed.

So, mainly third-party stuff? Limited or no functionality built-in?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688354

On Sat, 3/29/2025 2:43 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:29:49 -0400, Paul wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 3/28/2025 5:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:25:31 -0400, Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>> And yeah, I just bought a 35 petabyte hard drive yesterday.
>>>> What a coincidence :-)
>>>
>>> In Linux, we can have volumes spanning multiple physical drives, using
>>> technologies like LVM (not to be confused with LLVM).
>>>
>>> Not sure that Windows has anything like LVM, though.
>>>
>> You would need to find a server group, to discover best practice.
>> There is Storage Spaces. and Veritas Dynamic Disk allows some virtual
>> volumes to be constructed.
> 
> So, mainly third-party stuff? Limited or no functionality built-in?
> 

The Veritas technology was *bought* by Microsoft, and part of
the contract terms, are to include the name of the company
inventing the idea. Dynamic disks have been in Windows for over 20 years.
The dynamic disk metadata is stored on all disk drives connected to
the PC, so it cannot get lost. Technologies like this age,
and there are fewer reasons to use them today.

Storage Spaces is a *Microsoft* technology. I'm not skilled
enough to give you a lesson in all the options. It is used
on servers. You might find one user in the Windows group
who uses it for home arrays/pools. Most of us don't have
enough disk-on-line to need stuff like that. It can handle a lot
of disks, likely to be as many as you can fit cards in the
PCIe slots for. At least 100 disks can be in a pool. In my sample
photo, I only put four disks (VHD virtual ones), just to illustrate
the interfaces for setup.

To some extent, Microsoft buys fewer softwares today. In WinXP
era, it bought the Presidents Software defragmenter, put it in
WinXP. The interface for that software, does not give credit
to the Presidents corporation people. Microsoft also bought
the defragmenter safe-block-move software from another company
(they may have a patent on it), and all the defragmenter companies
today, including the shrink and expand operations for partitions,
use the safe-block-mover to try to prevent trouble. While a disk
is being defragmented, if the power goes off, nothing is lost.
This implies atomic updates of some sort, or at least,
a safe way of moving blocks.

In the Win98 era, Microsoft bought the network stack, but
that is purely my own theory based on how the OS can "hang"
on certain network operations. And it implies a lack of
integration when Win98 was written. The network stack may
have been monolithic and just plunked into the OS. And that
had consequences for some network operations. A number of companies
bought network stacks. Tenon Intersystems used to sell network
stacks to third-parties. but after a certain company "donated"
a network stack to the industry, companies stopped buying them,
and started "owning" the stacks internally. And were faced with one fewer
issue to solve. They did not necessarily copy the source code
of that sample stack, but if they needed a sample implementation,
they could look at that code for the "inspiration".

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688389

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 03:18:39 -0400, Paul wrote:

> Storage Spaces is a *Microsoft* technology. I'm not skilled
> enough to give you a lesson in all the options. It is used
> on servers. You might find one user in the Windows group
> who uses it for home arrays/pools.

I can remember it was in Windows Home Server 1.0, which was Microsoft’s 
failed attempt to compete with cheap NAS boxes running Linux. And then 
removed in 2.0, to the great unhappiness of the handful of users who 
wasted their money on the Microsoft product.

> In WinXP era, it bought the Presidents Software defragmenter, put it in
> WinXP.

I thought a defragger was only introduced in Windows Vista. I remember 
because SSDs were just starting to become popular around then, and users 
discovered that Vista was shortening the life of their drives.

Windows 7 fixed the defragger to ignore SSDs.

The Linux folks fixed the problem just by designing their system to be 
more resistant to fragmentation in the first place.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688346

On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:23:00 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>In Linux, we can have volumes spanning multiple physical drives, using 
>technologies like LVM (not to be confused with LLVM).
>
>Not sure that Windows has anything like LVM, though.

There are several such applications like that for Windows. I've been
using one since 2009. I currently have a 5-drive 60TB volume on this PC
and a 15-drive 40TB volume on the other PC. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688350

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:29:12 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:23:00 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> In Linux, we can have volumes spanning multiple physical drives, using
>> technologies like LVM (not to be confused with LLVM).
>>
>>Not sure that Windows has anything like LVM, though.
> 
> There are several such applications like that for Windows.

So, only third-party stuff? Nothing built-in?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688355

On Sat, 3/29/2025 2:43 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:29:12 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:23:00 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In Linux, we can have volumes spanning multiple physical drives, using
>>> technologies like LVM (not to be confused with LLVM).
>>>
>>> Not sure that Windows has anything like LVM, though.
>>
>> There are several such applications like that for Windows.
> 
> So, only third-party stuff? Nothing built-in?
> 

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/storage-spaces-in-windows-b6c8b540-b8d8-fb8a-e7ab-4a75ba11f9f2

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688388

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 03:21:11 -0400, Paul wrote:

> https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/storage-spaces-in-windows-b6c8b540-b8d8-fb8a-e7ab-4a75ba11f9f2

Seems like a combination of MD-RAID and LVM. Note these are separate
facilities in Linux. Note also that Windows only offers the options
(from the above docs) of “two-way mirror”, “three-way mirror” and
“parity”.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688293

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:20:00 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> 
> NTFS is certainly showing its age. But it’s not clear that ReFS is
> really enough to take Windows forward.
>

Whatever the case, it will be another proprietary format that GNU/Linux
cannot (easily) access.

IIRC, it tooks many years befor GNU/Linux was able to correctly access
and write NTFS files.

I still would not trust the Linux kernel module for writing NTFS even
though it is regarded to be stable and free from error.

In the not-so-rare times that I must interchange files between Winblows
and GNU/Linux I will use either VFAT or EXFAT format.



-- 
Hail Linux!  Hail FOSS!  Hail Stallman!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688296

On Fri, 3/28/2025 6:40 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:20:00 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> 
>>
>> NTFS is certainly showing its age. But it’s not clear that ReFS is
>> really enough to take Windows forward.
>>
> 
> Whatever the case, it will be another proprietary format that GNU/Linux
> cannot (easily) access.
> 
> IIRC, it tooks many years befor GNU/Linux was able to correctly access
> and write NTFS files.
> 
> I still would not trust the Linux kernel module for writing NTFS even
> though it is regarded to be stable and free from error.
> 
> In the not-so-rare times that I must interchange files between Winblows
> and GNU/Linux I will use either VFAT or EXFAT format.

Paragon is offering a Linux driver for ReFS.
Even though the ReFS has no public spec for it.

I whipped up a quick test.

   [Picture]

    https://i.postimg.cc/bNfxLZpS/Re-FS-On-W11-Insider.gif

I don't think anything has changed.

Partition shrink is not offered (in Windows File Explorer).

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688337

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2025-03-28, Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:20:00 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> 
>> NTFS is certainly showing its age. But it’s not clear that ReFS is
>> really enough to take Windows forward.
>>
>
> Whatever the case, it will be another proprietary format that GNU/Linux
> cannot (easily) access.
>
> IIRC, it tooks many years befor GNU/Linux was able to correctly access
> and write NTFS files.
>
> I still would not trust the Linux kernel module for writing NTFS even
> though it is regarded to be stable and free from error.
>
> In the not-so-rare times that I must interchange files between Winblows
> and GNU/Linux I will use either VFAT or EXFAT format.
>
>
>

Is there any particular experience that you had that made you distrust
the Linux NTFS driver?

I've found it quite robust, but that is just my experience.  Neverthess,
I do still choose exfat or if necessary, vfat for shared partitions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688341

On Fri, 3/28/2025 8:57 PM, Borax Man wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On 2025-03-28, Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:20:00 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> NTFS is certainly showing its age. But it’s not clear that ReFS is
>>> really enough to take Windows forward.
>>>
>>
>> Whatever the case, it will be another proprietary format that GNU/Linux
>> cannot (easily) access.
>>
>> IIRC, it tooks many years befor GNU/Linux was able to correctly access
>> and write NTFS files.
>>
>> I still would not trust the Linux kernel module for writing NTFS even
>> though it is regarded to be stable and free from error.
>>
>> In the not-so-rare times that I must interchange files between Winblows
>> and GNU/Linux I will use either VFAT or EXFAT format.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Is there any particular experience that you had that made you distrust
> the Linux NTFS driver?
> 
> I've found it quite robust, but that is just my experience.  Neverthess,
> I do still choose exfat or if necessary, vfat for shared partitions.
> 

There is more than one NTFS driver now. There is one in kernel
and one in FUSE. They're different. From different sources.
Your newest distro may be doing something you did not expect
or select yourself as a behavior.

One knows something about more reparse points than the other.
This means, when a reparse point is present, the label in the GUI
will attest to that fact. The other driver tended to produce
messages that were a bit deceptive about what was going on.

This has no impact on a USB stick with a few files on it. Most
of the bad behaviors are when using Linux to work on Windows OS volumes.

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688363

On 2025-03-29, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 3/28/2025 8:57 PM, Borax Man wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>> On 2025-03-28, Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:20:00 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> NTFS is certainly showing its age. But it’s not clear that ReFS is
>>>> really enough to take Windows forward.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Whatever the case, it will be another proprietary format that GNU/Linux
>>> cannot (easily) access.
>>>
>>> IIRC, it tooks many years befor GNU/Linux was able to correctly access
>>> and write NTFS files.
>>>
>>> I still would not trust the Linux kernel module for writing NTFS even
>>> though it is regarded to be stable and free from error.
>>>
>>> In the not-so-rare times that I must interchange files between Winblows
>>> and GNU/Linux I will use either VFAT or EXFAT format.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> Is there any particular experience that you had that made you distrust
>> the Linux NTFS driver?
>> 
>> I've found it quite robust, but that is just my experience.  Neverthess,
>> I do still choose exfat or if necessary, vfat for shared partitions.
>> 
>
> There is more than one NTFS driver now. There is one in kernel
> and one in FUSE. They're different. From different sources.
> Your newest distro may be doing something you did not expect
> or select yourself as a behavior.
>
> One knows something about more reparse points than the other.
> This means, when a reparse point is present, the label in the GUI
> will attest to that fact. The other driver tended to produce
> messages that were a bit deceptive about what was going on.
>
> This has no impact on a USB stick with a few files on it. Most
> of the bad behaviors are when using Linux to work on Windows OS volumes.
>
>     Paul

Ahh, I see.  My experience has been somewhat limited.  Only really used
it to occasionally access my old Windows partition, an XP one.  Nothing
too heavy or demanding.  I think using NTFS-3g, the Fuse driver.  Still
like you, I would much rather trust a native Linux filesystem while
using Linux.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web