Am Wed, 31 Aug 2016 02:32:24 +0200 schrieb Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com>:
> On 31/08/2016 02:08, Grant wrote: > [...] > [...] > >> > >> You can't control ownership and permissions of existing files with > >> mount options on a Linux filesystem. See man mount. > > > > > > So in order to use a USB stick between multiple Gentoo systems with > > ext2, I need to make sure my users have matching UIDs/GIDs? > > Yes > > The uids/gids/modes in the inodes themselves are the owners and perms, > you cannot override them. > > So unless you have mode=666, you will need matching UIDs/GIDs (which > is a royal massive pain in the butt to bring about without NIS or > similar > > > I think > > this is how I ended up on NTFS in the first place. > > Didn't we have this discussion about a year ago? Sounds familiar now > > > Is there a > > filesystem that will make that unnecessary and exhibit better > > reliability than NTFS? > > Yes, FAT. It works and works well. > Or exFAT which is Microsoft's solution to the problem of very large > files on FAT. > > Which NTFS system are you using? > > ntfs kernel module? It's quite dodgy and unsafe with writes > ntfs-ng on fuse? I find that one quite solid > > > ntfs-ng does have an annoyance that has bitten me more than once. When > ntfs-nf writes to an FS, it can get marked dirty. Somehow, when used > in a Windows machine the driver there has issues with the FS. Remount > it in Linux again and all is good. Well, ntfs-ng simply sets the dirty flag which to Windows means "needs chkdsk". So Windows complains upon mount that it needs to chkdsk the drive first. That's all. Nothing bad. > The cynic in me says that Microsoft didn'y implement their own FS spec > properly whereas ntfs-ng did :-) Or ntfs-ng simply doesn't trust itself enough while MS trusts itself too much. Modern Windows kernels almost never set the dirty bit and instead trust self-healing capabilities of NTFS by using repair hotspots. By current design, NTFS may be broken at any time while Windows tells you nothing about it. If the kernel comes across a defective structure it marks it as a repair hotspot. A background process repairs these online. If that fails, it is marked for offline repair which is repaired silently during mount phase. But the dirty bit? I haven't seen this in a long time (last time was Windows 2003). Run a chkdsk on an aging Windows installation which has crashed one or another time. Did you ever see a chkdsk running? No? Then run a forced chkdsk. Chances are that it will find and repair problems. Run a non-forced chkdsk: It will only check if there are repair hotspots. If none are there, it says: Everything fine. It's lying at you. But still, the papers about NTFS self-healing are quite interesting to read. It just appears not as mature to me as MS thinks it to be. -- Regards, Kai Replies to list-only preferred.
