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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #11693 > unrolled thread

External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system?

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

Contents

  External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Evgenii Sputnik <esputnik7788@gmail.com> - 2014-07-31 13:35 -0400
    Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-07-31 19:44 +0200
      Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Evgenii Sputnik <esputnik7788@gmail.com> - 2014-08-29 07:45 +0700
        Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-08-29 03:37 +0200
        Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2014-08-28 21:09 -0500
          Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-08-29 21:16 +0200
      Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2014-08-29 02:46 +0000
        Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-08-29 05:14 +0200
          Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2014-08-29 14:45 +0100
            Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2014-08-29 15:19 +0000
              Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2014-08-30 14:42 +0200
                Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2014-08-30 09:09 -0500
                  Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2014-08-30 17:41 +0200
                    Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-08-30 15:21 -0700
                  Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2014-08-31 17:13 +0000
                    Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2014-08-31 13:24 -0500
                      Is VirtualBox "lame"? (Was: something else...) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-08-31 20:23 +0000
                        Re: Is VirtualBox "lame"? (Was: something else...) Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2014-08-31 15:51 -0500
                          Re: Is VirtualBox "lame"? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-08-31 23:58 +0000
                            Re: Is VirtualBox "lame"? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2014-08-31 21:54 -0500
                              Re: Is VirtualBox "lame"? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-01 07:54 +0100
                            Re: Is VirtualBox "lame"? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-09-01 08:53 +0200
                          Re: Is VirtualBox "lame"? (Was: something else...) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-01 07:47 +0100
                      Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2014-08-31 21:00 +0000
                    Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-08-31 18:50 +0000
                      Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2014-08-31 21:01 +0000
                        Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-01 00:06 +0000
                          Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-01 07:50 +0100
                Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2014-08-31 03:18 +0000
    Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2014-07-31 12:54 -0500
      Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2014-08-14 12:39 +0000
        Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-08-14 08:15 -0700
    Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-07-31 19:08 +0100
      Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2014-07-31 14:27 -0500
    Re: External hard drive usage. NTFS or other file system? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2014-07-31 12:43 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#11867 — Re: Is VirtualBox "lame"?

On 01/09/14 03:54, Robert Heller wrote:
> *I*  would never use
> VirtualBox if I needed to run a VM as a server or something like that

Precisely. Its a 'multiple client on my desktop'  package, NOT a 
'multiple server in the machine room'  package. That's VMware or Xen etc 
etc.

Having tried VMware first, I love virtual box because it is optimised 
for client usage. In short its designed to do the particular job I 
wanted it to do.

VMware came with with a whole different bunch of stuff that I didnt want 
didn't need but still had to be accounted for.



-- 
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the 
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

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

#11866 — Re: Is VirtualBox "lame"?

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>> At Sun, 31 Aug 2014 20:23:11 +0000 (UTC) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
>> > 
>> > In article <EKWdnbvNV4_M9Z7JnZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> > Robert Heller  <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>> > ...
>> > >I would just as 
>> > >soon NOT use something really lame like VirtualBox.
>> > 
>> > What makes you say that VB is lame?
>
>> I found it had several 'funcky' aspects: *I* found its GUI had some 'mis
>> features'. It did not give the level of control/access to the VMs that, for
>> example, virsh does (or even virt-manager).
>
>The gui for VirtualBox is limited in what it will allow you to
>accomplish.
>
>For the truly advanced stuff, you have to use VBoxManage from the
>command line.

Which is remarkable similiar to what virsh and virt-manager can do. At
least, in VirtualBox, I don't need to define its own storage pool for
each subdirectory of my image store.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

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

#11864 — Re: Is VirtualBox "lame"? (Was: something else...)

On 31/08/14 21:51, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Sun, 31 Aug 2014 20:23:11 +0000 (UTC) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
>>
>> In article <EKWdnbvNV4_M9Z7JnZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Robert Heller  <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> I would just as
>>> soon NOT use something really lame like VirtualBox.
>>
>> What makes you say that VB is lame?
>
> I found it had several 'funcky' aspects: *I* found its GUI had some 'mis
> features'. It did not give the level of control/access to the VMs that, for
> example, virsh does (or even virt-manager). It gave me the impression that it
> was something of a 'toy' system: fine for light duty use for people who need a
> VM for somewhat occassional use. If you want to do more serious work, you
> would be better served by either xen or kvm. There was a poster on the
> original thread that was having trouble with fragmentation working with a DB
> system (Oracle I think) that was using VB. People suggested that he move to
> kvm, but he claimed that he just had a desktop system, and I said I was using
> xen & lvm volumns on a fairly modest (by current standards) desktop system, so
> there really was no reason to be stuck with VB.
>

Horses for courses,

If you are running concurrent servers the last thing to use is virtual 
box. If however you need to run different clients on a desktop., its 
about the fastest way to get them working albeit with some gotchas.

The overall level of integration of the guest screen is far better than 
the opposition for example..


The requirements are different. Desktop clients want decent video speed, 
and simplicity  - many people testing e,g. web browsers or some other 
software want half a dozen operating systems there to ensure their code 
does run against all of them. Virtual box is handy for that. Or its 
handy to run legacy apps on an old OS.

What it ain't suitable for is a remote server room and '100 instances of 
guests on one blade'


>>
>


-- 
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the 
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

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

#11859

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:24:17 -0500, Robert Heller wrote:

> *I* use a 'desktop class machine' and use LVM and XEN under CentOS 5. I
> have 8gig of RAM and 250Gig of hard drive space.  (No I don't have a SAN
> either, but I do run software RAID on my 'desktop class machine'.  I
> would just as soon NOT use something really lame like VirtualBox.  I'd
> run XEN (or with a newer O/S, KVM).

This is an unwelcome discussion about taste in applications. I have no 
intent of continuing it. You use whatever you want, I will use whatever I 
find suitable for my purposes. That's all I have to say about it.



-- 
Mladen Gogala
The Oracle Whisperer
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

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

#11856

Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:09:33 -0500, Robert Heller wrote:

> > I suspect that Mladen Gogala's problem is that a VMDK file is not really
> > a 'disk' in the normal sense, but some kind of sparce copy-on-write
> > psuedo disk (which might be fine for 'toy' VMs on a desktop system with
> > limited actual disk space). If he was using 'real' disk space (eg a LVM
> > logical volumn), things might be different.

> Of course VMDK file is not really a disk and virtual machine is not 
> really a machine. With VMWare, it is possible to use LVM logical volume 
> instead of file, it's called "RDM", which stands for "raw disk mapping". 

It is also possible to point VirtualBox to a raw disk partition (or LVM
logical volume) as well.

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

#11860

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:50:44 +0000, Rich wrote:

> It is also possible to point VirtualBox to a raw disk partition (or LVM
> logical volume) as well.

Thanks! I have never tried it, but it's nice to know that it is possible.



-- 
Mladen Gogala
The Oracle Whisperer
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

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

#11862

Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:50:44 +0000, Rich wrote:

> > It is also possible to point VirtualBox to a raw disk partition (or
> > LVM logical volume) as well.

> Thanks! I have never tried it, but it's nice to know that it is
> possible.

You have to use the VBoxManage command line tool to hook it to a
physical /dev/sd? disk device.  The ability to hook to a raw partition
is not exposed in the GUI.

I've used the feature before to install Slackware on disks intended for
older boxes where the older MB's won't boot from USB, and I don't have
a dvd drive in the box.  I just hooked the disk up to an ata->usb
adapter, pointed VB at the /dev/sd? device that was the disk on usb,
and booted the Slackware DVD in VB.  The added advantage is the install
goes much faster off an I7 from a virtually mounted ISO onto a usb attached
drive than it would have went on the box the drive was headed into (old
P4 celeron that acts as my DVR using an Nvida card with VDPAU hardware).

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

#11865

On 01/09/14 01:06, Rich wrote:
> Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:50:44 +0000, Rich wrote:
>
>>> It is also possible to point VirtualBox to a raw disk partition (or
>>> LVM logical volume) as well.
>
>> Thanks! I have never tried it, but it's nice to know that it is
>> possible.
>
> You have to use the VBoxManage command line tool to hook it to a
> physical /dev/sd? disk device.  The ability to hook to a raw partition
> is not exposed in the GUI.
>

That ain't a bug, that's a feecha.


The GUI provides a minimal set of stuff you NEED to do to get stuff working.

The command line is by definition, for people who understand a lot more 
about what they are doing.




-- 
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the 
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

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

#11853

On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:42:37 +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:


> There is a huge gap between "contiguous" and "gazillion of small
> fragments". If fragments are big enough (wrt. the disk sequential speed
> * access time product), the adverse effects of fragmentation should be
> minimized.

It should be minimized, and it is minimized by using buffering. Buffering 
is the mechanism that offsets the effects of fragmentation. However, when 
I run 4 virtual machines simultaneously, each with 2GB or more of memory, 
memory is a precious commodity. I know, my PC needs an upgrade and it 
will get it around Christmas. I don't have enough time until then to plan 
that all.

> 
> In ext4, isn't the use of extents supposed to reduce fragmentation and
> improve large file performance ?

You are, of course, quite right. However, XFS does that better:

mgogala@medo RAC]$ du -sh sharedhd2.vdi 
21G	sharedhd2.vdi
[mgogala@medo RAC]$ filefrag *
sharedhd2.vdi: 1 extent found


[mgogala@medo oradb]$ ls
OraDB.vdi
[mgogala@medo oradb]$ du -sh *
33G	OraDB.vdi
[mgogala@medo oradb]$ filefrag *
OraDB.vdi: 1 extent found
[mgogala@medo oradb]$ 
mgogala@medo oradb]$ file OraDB.vdi
OraDB.vdi: VirtualBox Disk Image, major 1, minor 1 (<<< Oracle VM 
VirtualBox Disk Image >>>), 34359738368 bytes


I spoke of VMDK files because everyone is, in fact, familiar with VMWare. 
On Linux, and I am running Fedora 20, I prefer VirtualBox. VDI files are 
VirtualBox version of VMDK files. Ext4 has a maximum extent size of 128M. 
XFS manages to keep the files contiguous, which means that a sequential 
scan of several consecutive disk blocks will be done by a single multi-
block IO both on the virtual machine and on the actual disk. The machine 
is 4 years old and could use an upgrade, but until then, I will try 
squeezing every last drop of performance, even by de-fragmenting my large 
files, if necessary. Of course, I am using the deadline scheduler, too.

> Besides, shouldn't VM managers be aware of this issue and grow virtual
> disk files by big chunks in order to limit fragmentation too ?

They should and they are, but they could always use some help. Don't get 
me wrong, I have nothing against ext4. I use it on my desktop 
environment, which is Xubuntu 14.04 (XFCE spin off). Ext4 performs better 
when there is a myriad of small files to process. The largest files on my 
desktop are produced by LibreOffice and Evolution and are only few 
megabytes in size. Ext4 with CFQ scheduler is great for that environment, 
but not for my very own Simpana backup suite lab. That's the job for XFS.



-- 
Mladen Gogala
The Oracle Whisperer
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

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

#11695

At Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:35:30 -0400 Evgenii Sputnik <esputnik7788@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Hello users.
> 
> I have an external hard drive and a question. Should I use NTFS on it, 
> if I plan access only from GNU/Linux, or there is an advantage on using 
> ext2 or ext4 file systems then?

If you are only going to access it from GNU/Linux systems, you really should
be using a GNU/Linux file system, such as ext[234] or xfs or the like. The is
NO advantage to using NTFS if the disk will never interact with a mess-windows
system. If you were 'sharing' with a Mac (eg OS-X), using hpfs+ would make
sense. You should only use NTFS (or FAT) if you intend to use the disk with a
mess-windows system.

>                                                                                                                           

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                           

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

#11744

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:54:29 -0500, Robert Heller wrote:

> At Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:35:30 -0400 Evgenii Sputnik
> <esputnik7788@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Hello users.
>> 
>> I have an external hard drive and a question. Should I use NTFS on it,
>> if I plan access only from GNU/Linux, or there is an advantage on using
>> ext2 or ext4 file systems then?
> 
> If you are only going to access it from GNU/Linux systems, you really
> should be using a GNU/Linux file system, such as ext[234] or xfs or the
> like. The is NO advantage to using NTFS if the disk will never interact
> with a mess-windows system. If you were 'sharing' with a Mac (eg OS-X),
> using hpfs+ would make sense. You should only use NTFS (or FAT) if you
> intend to use the disk with a mess-windows system.
> 
No! it's not about what you "intend". You can't escape Micro$loth
touching you. I'm very disapointed with the 500GB Toshiba USB-2/3
that I got. IIRC, I left the first part of it as the default type:
NTFS?  
Partitions 2,3 as ext* became corrupted; perhaps due to the
USB-3 cable.

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

#11745

On 2014-08-14, Unknown <dog@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:54:29 -0500, Robert Heller wrote:
>> 
>> If you are only going to access it from GNU/Linux systems, you really
>> should be using a GNU/Linux file system, such as ext[234] or xfs or the
>> like. The is NO advantage to using NTFS if the disk will never interact
>> with a mess-windows system. If you were 'sharing' with a Mac (eg OS-X),
>> using hpfs+ would make sense. You should only use NTFS (or FAT) if you
>> intend to use the disk with a mess-windows system.
>> 
> No! it's not about what you "intend". You can't escape Micro$loth
> touching you.

Of course you can.

> Partitions 2,3 as ext* became corrupted; perhaps due to the
> USB-3 cable.

More likely due to PEBKAC.

--keith

-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

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

#11696

On 31/07/14 18:35, Evgenii Sputnik wrote:
> Hello users.
>
> I have an external hard drive and a question. Should I use NTFS on it,
> if I plan access only from GNU/Linux, or there is an advantage on using
> ext2 or ext4 file systems then?

NTFS works OK with modern linuxes IME.

But another option is ext2 and an ext2 filesystem driver for Windows 
(thinking XP, one worked quite well, YMMV).

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

#11697

At Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:08:19 +0100 Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> 
> On 31/07/14 18:35, Evgenii Sputnik wrote:
> > Hello users.
> >
> > I have an external hard drive and a question. Should I use NTFS on it,
> > if I plan access only from GNU/Linux, or there is an advantage on using
> > ext2 or ext4 file systems then?
> 
> NTFS works OK with modern linuxes IME.

But lacks POSIX permissions and owners.  Since the OP is *only* using 
GNU/Linux, NTFS is a disadvantage.

> 
> But another option is ext2 and an ext2 filesystem driver for Windows 
> (thinking XP, one worked quite well, YMMV).
>                      

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                                  

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

#11698

On 07/31/2014 10:35 AM, Evgenii Sputnik wrote:
> Hello users.
>
> I have an external hard drive and a question. Should I use NTFS on it,
> if I plan access only from GNU/Linux, or there is an advantage on using
> ext2 or ext4 file systems then?

	Will you have to access it with Windumb?
	If so then NTFS is the way to go.

	If you are only going to use GNU/Linux then what are you going to use 
it for?
	If you are using large files such as video or iso files of some sort 
then XFS might be better than other GNU/Linux file systems.

	For smaller files ext4.

	I just set up a portable external drive with 75 Gigabytes of personal 
storage in ext4 and 2 200 Gigabyte partitions one for ISO files and the 
other for Video files.

	Just IMhO, of course/.

	bliss
	

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web