Comments on: What About Interoperability? http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/ Linux. GNU. Freedom. Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:03:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-RC1-10015 hourly 1 By: Lucian http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102368 Lucian Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:06:58 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102368 @Alex If you use UDF 1.5, os x has no problem with it. I'll make a lot of noise if I lose any data. @Alex
If you use UDF 1.5, os x has no problem with it. I’ll make a lot of noise if I lose any data.

]]> By: Walther http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102329 Walther Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:55:56 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102329 I'm surprised you are worrying about 4KB on a drive of 1GB. I have all the respect for you due to the things you write here, but this is kind of silly. 4KB on 1TB is 0.000 000 4%. You say you paid for all that space, but if you would be able to buy a 1.000 000 004 TB disk for the same price per Byte, the difference in price rounded to dollar cents would be 0. Another thing to consider: filesystems always have overhead that is much more than that. Try this on any file or directory: /$ du -h /etc/ssh 4.2M /etc/ssh /$ du -h --apparent-size /etc/ssh 4.1M /etc/ssh There is a 100KB difference in allocated and real size of a directory of 4MB. So if you are concerned with space you should look at the allocation overhead per filesystem. My guess is that you won't even notice the 4KB difference in partition sizes anymore. I’m surprised you are worrying about 4KB on a drive of 1GB. I have all the respect for you due to the things you write here, but this is kind of silly.

4KB on 1TB is 0.000 000 4%. You say you paid for all that space, but if you would be able to buy a 1.000 000 004 TB disk for the same price per Byte, the difference in price rounded to dollar cents would be 0.

Another thing to consider: filesystems always have overhead that is much more than that. Try this on any file or directory:
/$ du -h /etc/ssh
4.2M /etc/ssh
/$ du -h –apparent-size /etc/ssh
4.1M /etc/ssh

There is a 100KB difference in allocated and real size of a directory of 4MB. So if you are concerned with space you should look at the allocation overhead per filesystem. My guess is that you won’t even notice the 4KB difference in partition sizes anymore.

]]> By: robert renling http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102324 robert renling Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:40:02 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102324 I'd like to recommend the nslu2. you can stick debian on it and hook up to two usb enclosures to it. I don't think i need to dwelve on the premise. I’d like to recommend the nslu2. you can stick debian on it and hook up to two usb enclosures to it.
I don’t think i need to dwelve on the premise.

]]> By: Jonathan Doyle http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102287 Jonathan Doyle Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:03:54 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102287 Concerned about losing 4 KB? Aren't we being picky? Formatting alone will make you lose a thousand times that. Concerned about losing 4 KB? Aren’t we being picky?
Formatting alone will make you lose a thousand times that.

]]> By: Aaron http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102272 Aaron Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:21:36 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102272 For those who are concerned about 4 KB, I didn't pay good money to lose space on a 1 TB disc, no matter the amount. And Amy, what does this have to do with proprietary software. Nothing in my post was referring to it, so why are you? I'm looking for the best solution on this disc, all of which, by the way, are open source solutions in Linux. For those who are concerned about 4 KB, I didn’t pay good money to lose space on a 1 TB disc, no matter the amount. And Amy, what does this have to do with proprietary software. Nothing in my post was referring to it, so why are you? I’m looking for the best solution on this disc, all of which, by the way, are open source solutions in Linux.

]]> By: Amy Rose http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102265 Amy Rose Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:46:26 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102265 Wow... you're seriously that concerned about losing 4K off a terabyte? Or is this really your chance to attack proprietary software for just being proprietary? Just for that, I should buy another Mac. ;) Wow… you’re seriously that concerned about losing 4K off a terabyte? Or is this really your chance to attack proprietary software for just being proprietary?

Just for that, I should buy another Mac. ;)

]]> By: Alex http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102242 Alex Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:49:57 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102242 Oh, this is something that's been driving me absolutely nuts. I do video editing, and I'd like to share BIG files between Linux and OSX. I used to care about Windows, too, but not anymore, thankfully. I tried UDF, but at the time, Linux only supported 1GB files on UDF due to a kernel bug. I don't know how well it works now, but I seem to recall OSX having some trouble with it, too, so I don't know if UDF is really a solution now. Also, something that nobody has mentioned is that Linux only has write support for HFS+ if journaling is disabled, similar to the situation with ext3 on OSX and Windows (to a degree). As you said, one would think this would be a non-issue in 2008, but no. Microsoft and Apple have to play their little secrets game. Grrrr! Oh, this is something that’s been driving me absolutely nuts. I do video editing, and I’d like to share BIG files between Linux and OSX. I used to care about Windows, too, but not anymore, thankfully. I tried UDF, but at the time, Linux only supported 1GB files on UDF due to a kernel bug. I don’t know how well it works now, but I seem to recall OSX having some trouble with it, too, so I don’t know if UDF is really a solution now. Also, something that nobody has mentioned is that Linux only has write support for HFS+ if journaling is disabled, similar to the situation with ext3 on OSX and Windows (to a degree). As you said, one would think this would be a non-issue in 2008, but no. Microsoft and Apple have to play their little secrets game. Grrrr!

]]> By: Andrew http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102233 Andrew Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:46:32 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102233 Wikipedia says Ubuntu and MacOS X both use NTFS-3g. I'm using a USB external drive on a Windows XP / Ubuntu dual boot and am able to read/write to the NTFS-formatted external drive. Wikipedia says Ubuntu and MacOS X both use NTFS-3g. I’m using a USB external drive on a Windows XP / Ubuntu dual boot and am able to read/write to the NTFS-formatted external drive.

]]> By: James http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102232 James Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:38:55 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102232 @Ty Rex - The hardware isn't exactly vendor lock-in. He *is* putting a different filesystem on it, y'know. OS X ain't exactly locked in all that much either; the kernel is open source and you can recompile it if you wish. As he said in the article, someone has written an ext2 filesystem driver for it, it's just not being maintained. Developer inactivity does signify vendor lockin. And let's not forget that it's *Linux* which is having issues with HFS+. ;-) @Ty Rex - The hardware isn’t exactly vendor lock-in. He *is* putting a different filesystem on it, y’know.

OS X ain’t exactly locked in all that much either; the kernel is open source and you can recompile it if you wish. As he said in the article, someone has written an ext2 filesystem driver for it, it’s just not being maintained. Developer inactivity does signify vendor lockin.

And let’s not forget that it’s *Linux* which is having issues with HFS+. ;-)

]]> By: Ty Rex http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102231 Ty Rex Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:29:50 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102231 Ummm that is what you get when you buy vendor lock-in software and/or hardware. Made you bed, now lie in it. Ummm that is what you get when you buy vendor lock-in software and/or hardware. Made you bed, now lie in it.

]]> By: Lucian http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102223 Lucian Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:57:02 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102223 I've had great success with UDF partitions, with the exception of some versions of windows which simply fail to see the partition. I don't much care about windows, so it isn't much of a deal for me. I’ve had great success with UDF partitions, with the exception of some versions of windows which simply fail to see the partition. I don’t much care about windows, so it isn’t much of a deal for me.

]]> By: Jonas http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102220 Jonas Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:43:03 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102220 Hm...regarding HFS+...I may remember this wrong since it's been quite a while since I had to access data stored on a HFS+ partition. Anyway, from what I remember the Linux driver is quite happy to access them regardless of whether or not the partition boundary is a 4K multiple or not - assuming there is a valid HFS+ partition on say /dev/sdb1. Mkfs may complain but since you have MacOS X why not format it using the MacOS tools? Worth a try at least. Hm…regarding HFS+…I may remember this wrong since it’s been quite a while since I had to access data stored on a HFS+ partition. Anyway, from what I remember the Linux driver is quite happy to access them regardless of whether or not the partition boundary is a 4K multiple or not - assuming there is a valid HFS+ partition on say /dev/sdb1. Mkfs may complain but since you have MacOS X why not format it using the MacOS tools? Worth a try at least.

]]> By: Mph http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102217 Mph Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:30:31 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102217 This is an issue very dear to my heart after recently upgrading the drive in my MacBook. I wanted to use the old 60Gb drive in a caddy as a portable drive so I could share files and stuff with my friends. This meant I needed Mac OSX, Linux and Windows XP/Vista compatibility. This was a major pita. Why is there not a consistent way of sharing a drive between all major OS's yet... The only solution I could find that didn't involve a huge amount of software was to partition the drive as NTFS, and then rely on the ntfs-3g drivers in Ubuntu and via MacFuse on OSX. This approach has one main issue though (filesystem religous arguments notwithstanding) and that is that if people use it in windows and forget to unmount it properly, both Ubuntu and Mac OS are unable to mount it claiming that the ntfs table is marked in use. I then need to find a windows box, plug in the drive and unmount it properly. This is annoying to say the least. So I completely understand where you are coming from with this post. This is an issue very dear to my heart after recently upgrading the drive in my MacBook. I wanted to use the old 60Gb drive in a caddy as a portable drive so I could share files and stuff with my friends.

This meant I needed Mac OSX, Linux and Windows XP/Vista compatibility. This was a major pita. Why is there not a consistent way of sharing a drive between all major OS’s yet…

The only solution I could find that didn’t involve a huge amount of software was to partition the drive as NTFS, and then rely on the ntfs-3g drivers in Ubuntu and via MacFuse on OSX.

This approach has one main issue though (filesystem religous arguments notwithstanding) and that is that if people use it in windows and forget to unmount it properly, both Ubuntu and Mac OS are unable to mount it claiming that the ntfs table is marked in use. I then need to find a windows box, plug in the drive and unmount it properly.

This is annoying to say the least. So I completely understand where you are coming from with this post.

]]> By: Samat Jain http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102216 Samat Jain Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:29:14 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102216 You forgot to mention ZFS. Apple provides a ZFS driver with read/write support for MacOS X 10.5 and above, and Linux has a FUSE implementation. I'm not sure about performance, but it's probably terrible under both operating systems. At least it's a "next-gen" filesystem whose support under OS X and Linux can only get better with time. You forgot to mention ZFS.

Apple provides a ZFS driver with read/write support for MacOS X 10.5 and above, and Linux has a FUSE implementation.

I’m not sure about performance, but it’s probably terrible under both operating systems. At least it’s a “next-gen” filesystem whose support under OS X and Linux can only get better with time.

]]> By: Kelner http://pthree.org/2008/06/08/what-about-interoperability/#comment-102214 Kelner Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:09:43 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=595#comment-102214 Does NTFS really have block fragmentation problems? Even if it does it fares much better than FAT32. And NTFS-3g handles everything just fine. Does NTFS really have block fragmentation problems? Even if it does it fares much better than FAT32. And NTFS-3g handles everything just fine.

]]>