Dangers of Linux writing to NTFS ....??

Hello again,

Hope this is the correct forum into which to place this question. If
not, pls just throw the appropr. URL at me.

I have now seen mentioned elsewhere that Linux writing to NTFS is not a
smart move. There is a danger of corrupted data, file loss, etc.

Admittedly these conversations were happening in the context of earlier
both kernel and SAMBA versions. So I will ask with relevance to my own
versions;

Kernel: 2.4.21-27.0.2.EL
(I really don't know how much of that version number is relevant. It's a
WhiteBox dist. based on RHEL 3.0)

SAMBA: 3.0.9

Can someone with more knowledge than I pls give me "an opinion only" on
whether or not it is safe nowadays for Linux to use NTFS as filesystem
to read/write data?

MTiA

K

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:31:17 +1000, KDoc wrote:

> Can someone with more knowledge than I pls give me "an opinion only" on
> whether or not it is safe nowadays for Linux to use NTFS as filesystem
> to read/write data?

Well, it can be done and is 99 times out of 100 successful. It's just that
slim chance of data loss that would prevent me from doing risking it.
If I read the question correctly, you want to use NTFS as a filesystem for
linux? If it can be done, why would you want to over using a native FS
such as ext3 or reiserfs?

--
Jafar Calley
Producer - http://moonlife-records.com
--------------------------------------
See the latest Mars and Saturn images
http://fatcat.homelinux.org

Hello,

> Can someone with more knowledge than I pls give me "an opinion only" on
> whether or not it is safe nowadays for Linux to use NTFS as filesystem
> to read/write data?

well.. if you want an opinion, I think it's not safe.
A "Ntfs-Linux-Project" exists to make it possible as soon as the developers
have time.

KDoc wrote:

> Hello again,
>
> Hope this is the correct forum into which to place this question. If
> not, pls just throw the appropr. URL at me.
>
> I have now seen mentioned elsewhere that Linux writing to NTFS is not
> a smart move. There is a danger of corrupted data, file loss, etc.
>
> Admittedly these conversations were happening in the context of
> earlier both kernel and SAMBA versions. So I will ask with relevance
> to my own versions;
>
> Kernel: 2.4.21-27.0.2.EL
> (I really don't know how much of that version number is relevant. It's
> a WhiteBox dist. based on RHEL 3.0)

It has been suggested the writing to NTFS is not a good idea, however
some say it's ok if you use something like captive;

http://www.jankratochvil.net/project/captive/

> SAMBA: 3.0.9

Not a problem, the files are from the native filesystem[s] to the native
filesystem[s]. In other words, the reading and writing of the files are
handed by the Operating System hosting the file.



--
Contained within the Microsoft EULA;
This Limited Warranty is void if failure of the Product has resulted
from accident, abuse, misapplication, abnormal use or a virus.

Thanks Lenard.

Just so I'm clear on this.

Are you saying that, despite the previous conversation about Captive,
Linux-NTFS proj., etc., writing SAMBA -> NTFS Share is not a problem?

I.e. Are you saying that when I use smbfs (smbclient) to mount a
drive/directory/filesystem/share/whatever, that even if I'm using
programs on Linux to receive and (supposedly) write the file to disk
(... in my case files uploaded to a backup server), it is actually
Windows (NTFS) which handles the physical writing of the data to disk?

MTiA

K

Lenard wrote:
>>
>>I have now seen mentioned elsewhere that Linux writing to NTFS is not
>>a smart move. There is a danger of corrupted data, file loss, etc.
>>
>
>
>>SAMBA: 3.0.9
>
>
> Not a problem, the files are from the native filesystem[s] to the native
> filesystem[s]. In other words, the reading and writing of the files are
> handed by the Operating System hosting the file.
>

Thanks all for the answers so far.

My reasons for wanting to use the NTFS as filesystem are;

1. I acutally want to do it through SAMBA.
2. The NTFS box has mirrored disks (not to mention the capacity) whereas
the linux box I have available is only a singular disk.
3. It's a backup application, so the backed up data HAS to be safe.

K


jafar wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:31:17 +1000, KDoc wrote:
>
>
>>Can someone with more knowledge than I pls give me "an opinion only" on
>>whether or not it is safe nowadays for Linux to use NTFS as filesystem
>>to read/write data?
>
>
> Well, it can be done and is 99 times out of 100 successful. It's just that
> slim chance of data loss that would prevent me from doing risking it.
> If I read the question correctly, you want to use NTFS as a filesystem for
> linux? If it can be done, why would you want to over using a native FS
> such as ext3 or reiserfs?
>

On 2005-08-23, KDoc <kl@attitia.com> wrote:
> Thanks all for the answers so far.
>
> My reasons for wanting to use the NTFS as filesystem are;
>
> 1. I acutally want to do it through SAMBA.

If you use SAMBA, the Linux kernel doesn't need to have NTFS support. SAMBA
handles the translation. A non-problem.
--
Carl Fink carl@fink.to
If you attempt to fix something that isn't broken, it will be.
-Bruce Tognazzini

KDoc wrote:

> Thanks all for the answers so far.
>
> My reasons for wanting to use the NTFS as filesystem are;
>
> 1. I acutally want to do it through SAMBA.

What does SAMBA have to do with NTFS?

> 2. The NTFS box has mirrored disks (not to mention the capacity) whereas
> the linux box I have available is only a singular disk.
> 3. It's a backup application, so the backed up data HAS to be safe.

So, why are you running Windows?

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:17:58 +1000, KDoc <kl@attitia.com> wrote:

I'm not clear on what you're asking, but I think you're getting mixed
up with the format of the data in the file, and the format of the file
system itself.

Let's say you have a windows box formatted ntfs and a linux box
fromated in its native file system. If, using Samba, you move a file
from windows to linux, then linux will take care of how it's written
to the the linux disk, you needn't worry about what file system it's
using. You're not moving a file system, you're moving a file. Each
operating system will take care of how it stores the file. When you
move a file from windows to linux, windows doesn't write the file to
the linux disk, windows give the file to linux and lets it write it to
disk.

You don't want to format a linux disk ntfs. If you have a windows
disk formatted ntfs and put it in a linux box, then linux will be able
to read it, but that's a different situation.

Dan

>Thanks Lenard.
>
>Just so I'm clear on this.
>
>Are you saying that, despite the previous conversation about Captive,
>Linux-NTFS proj., etc., writing SAMBA -> NTFS Share is not a problem?
>
>I.e. Are you saying that when I use smbfs (smbclient) to mount a
>drive/directory/filesystem/share/whatever, that even if I'm using
>programs on Linux to receive and (supposedly) write the file to disk
>(... in my case files uploaded to a backup server), it is actually
>Windows (NTFS) which handles the physical writing of the data to disk?
>
>MTiA
>
>K
>
>Lenard wrote:
>>>
>>>I have now seen mentioned elsewhere that Linux writing to NTFS is not
>>>a smart move. There is a danger of corrupted data, file loss, etc.
>>>
>>
>>
>>>SAMBA: 3.0.9
>>
>>
>> Not a problem, the files are from the native filesystem[s] to the native
>> filesystem[s]. In other words, the reading and writing of the files are
>> handed by the Operating System hosting the file.
>>

Ok.

I understand now.

This was just my inexperience. Having recently come from an MS living, I
was suffering under the misapprehension that because I was wanting to
use a linux box for the app. and just using the MS as filesys, that it
was in fact Linux which would be accessing NTFS and writing to disk.

I hadn't realised that SAMBA would actually pass the data off to MS.
AFAI knew, SAMBA just enabled me to see the MS Share. I thought it was
still Linux which would be accessing the disk and that was my concern.
Apparently not.

So, as I understand it now, the Linux writing to NTFS issue is
effectively about when you happen to have both format disks in the same
machine (e.g. dual-boot) and want to access one filesys from the other.
In this scenario, the drivers are still 'not quite' mature..... (and
don't get me wrong. I couldn't write it to save my life.)

In my situation, where there are 2 different machines, it's irrelevant
as SAMBA takes care of it?

Got it. Thanks again to all.

K

P.S. Cause that's all I've got available James. :-)


James Knott wrote:
>
> So, why are you running Windows?
>