Hi! On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 10:48:27PM -0400, stan wrote: >On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 07:22:47PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 12:23:34AM +0200, Tonnerre LOMBARD wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 05:10:57PM +0200, Eric Elena wrote: >> > > I think fat32 is a good choice: you have nothing to install.
>> > Did you ever have to debug a deep directory structure where something >> > caused all directory to become files? On a 500G disk? Fun. >> I would suggest that the OP be very specific with what is needed. What >> size of filesystem? Which operating systems need to read only and which >> to read and write. Given how flexible Linux and OBSD are, I would guess >> that the limit will be what can windows do. I don't know since I only >> used windows 3.1 for some games when I wasn't running OS/2. For 7 years >> its been Debian and now I'm transitioning to OBSD. I never have to >> interoperate with windows users. >OK, let's eliminate Windows from the requiremant. Now we have OpenBSD, >Linux, and FreeBSD in order of importance. All 3 need read/write access. I >will be using this to move data, and I want to be able to keep various >places in sync, using rsync. So modification date, and file name retention >are important. >Where does that lead us? For me, ext2 works fine, on a USB hard drive. Initialized it under OpenBSD: First partitioned it into 2 primary partitions, one OpenBSD, one ext2. Edited the disklabel accordingly (have the ext2 on slice i). newfs'ed (a as ffs, mostly for backup purposes for OpenBSD boxen only, i.e. no respect for other OS's needs; i as ext2, using mke2fs from the e2fsprogs port/package). At least on OpenBSD and on Linux it has worked fine up to now, both reading and writing on both platforms. Kind regards, Hannah.
