Re: Turning NTFS on in GENERIC kernels
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 19:07:30 Ted Unangst wrote: > On Feb 5, 2008 3:49 PM, STeve Andre' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd like to suggest that NTFS be enabled by default in GENERIC; > > I realize that it can't be in the boot media because of size, but for > > general work not having to compile a non-standard kernel would be a > > win for a lot of people. Making it read-only as the default would > > be the way to do it. > > one thing is that inclusion in generic implies some level of support, > that nobody may care to offer. the ntfs code itself comes from a > basically dead upstream source. Good point Ted. I withdraw my suggestion, at least 'till the 4G bug is fixed. NTFS is sadly increasingly useful to have lying around. --STeve Andre'
Re: Turning NTFS on in GENERIC kernels
On Feb 5, 2008 3:49 PM, STeve Andre' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to suggest that NTFS be enabled by default in GENERIC; > I realize that it can't be in the boot media because of size, but for > general work not having to compile a non-standard kernel would be a > win for a lot of people. Making it read-only as the default would > be the way to do it. one thing is that inclusion in generic implies some level of support, that nobody may care to offer. the ntfs code itself comes from a basically dead upstream source.
Re: Turning NTFS on in GENERIC kernels
On Feb 5, 2008 10:19 PM, Antti Harri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Funny thing, I haven't really *ever* used NTFS (on > any OS) but couple of days ago I wanted to transfer > file to NTFS partition and couldn't because the kernel > lacked the driver. So instead of recompiling kernel I copied it over > to USB stick also because the file was very small. you can use ntfsprogs to write (some) files.
Re: Turning NTFS on in GENERIC kernels
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:33:16AM -0500, Josh Grosse wrote: > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:54:07 -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 08:30:00PM -0500, Josh Grosse wrote: > > > ntfs_readattr: offset too big: 595591168 (595656704) > 595634176 > > ^ > > | > > Would this be (file_size & 0x) by chance? --+ > > The file size was 4,890,601,472 bytes. $ moo 4890601472 \& 0x 0x2380a800 595634176 So it seems the size (at least at some point) in ntfs code is 32-bit, and higher bits are lost. I don't have any ntfs kernels (don't normally use it), and I can't be bothered to rebuild and track it down just now. ;-) -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Re: Turning NTFS on in GENERIC kernels
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:54:07 -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 08:30:00PM -0500, Josh Grosse wrote: > > ntfs_readattr: offset too big: 595591168 (595656704) > 595634176 > ^ > | > Would this be (file_size & 0x) by chance? --+ The file size was 4,890,601,472 bytes.
Re: Turning NTFS on in GENERIC kernels
On Tuesday 05 February 2008, STeve Andre' wrote: > My proceedure these days is to take the disk > out of the machine and stuff it into mine, mount it and extract data > before scrubbing the mindless thing and starting over... I normally boot the system from a live-cd (used Knoppix many times) and transfer the data via the network. No need to physically transfer the disk. -- Chris
Re: Turning NTFS on in GENERIC kernels
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 08:30:00PM -0500, Josh Grosse wrote: > ntfs_readattr: offset too big: 595591168 (595656704) > 595634176 ^ | Would this be (file_size & 0x) by chance? --+ -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Re: Turning NTFS on in GENERIC kernels
Funny thing, I haven't really *ever* used NTFS (on any OS) but couple of days ago I wanted to transfer file to NTFS partition and couldn't because the kernel lacked the driver. So instead of recompiling kernel I copied it over to USB stick also because the file was very small. On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, ropers wrote: Does anyone know where that NTFS support code for OpenBSD hails from? I'm just asking because I know that on the Linux side there's NTFS-3G ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS-3G ), which is stable and allows safe NTFS reading and writing. OTOH, NTFS-3G is base on FUSE, wich AFAIK doesn't exist for OpenBSD. NetBSD has PUFFS which according to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_in_Userspace ) is their FUSE-equivalent and they apparently support NTFS-3G with that. There's also "Fuse for FreeBSD": http://fuse4bsd.creo.hu/ A mature NTFS read/write ability does seem like a useful thing to me, so I wonder where the OpenBSD NTFS code stems from ((and whether there might be anyybody (qualified) interested in making the NTFS-3G code work under OpenBSD)). -- Antti Harri
Re: Turning NTFS on in GENERIC kernels
On 06/02/2008, STeve Andre' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >For some time now, I've been using the NTFS code in GENERIC. Lately > I've been subjected to an ever increasing number of Windows Sheep who > have infected themselves. My proceedure these days is to take the disk > out of the machine and stuff it into mine, mount it and extract data > before scrubbing the mindless thing and starting over... > >From my experience NTFS read-only access to disks has been flawless. > I think the largest amount of data I've extracted has been about 70G. > Given that XP systems essentially demand NTFS, having the ability to > read it is crucial when dealing with the hapless. > >I'd like to suggest that NTFS be enabled by default in GENERIC; > I realize that it can't be in the boot media because of size, but for > general work not having to compile a non-standard kernel would be a > win for a lot of people. Making it read-only as the default would > be the way to do it. > >If anyone has had a disaster reading NTFS data I'd like to hear it. Apologies for my clueless question, just curious here: Does anyone know where that NTFS support code for OpenBSD hails from? I'm just asking because I know that on the Linux side there's NTFS-3G ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS-3G ), which is stable and allows safe NTFS reading and writing. OTOH, NTFS-3G is base on FUSE, wich AFAIK doesn't exist for OpenBSD. NetBSD has PUFFS which according to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_in_Userspace ) is their FUSE-equivalent and they apparently support NTFS-3G with that. A mature NTFS read/write ability does seem like a useful thing to me, so I wonder where the OpenBSD NTFS code stems from ((and whether there might be anyybody (qualified) interested in making the NTFS-3G code work under OpenBSD)). Thanks and kind regards, --ropers
Re: Turning NTFS on in GENERIC kernels
On Tuesday 05 February 2008 19:19:41 Edd Barrett wrote: > Hi, > > On Feb 5, 2008 11:49 PM, STeve Andre' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I'd like to suggest that NTFS be enabled by default in GENERIC; > > I realize that it can't be in the boot media because of size, but for > > general work not having to compile a non-standard kernel would be a > > win for a lot of people. Making it read-only as the default would > > be the way to do it. > > How much bigger does the kernel get when you add this functionality? paladin / ll bsd* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 6549193 Feb 1 16:10 bsd* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 6549193 Feb 1 16:10 bsd.mp* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 6549193 Jan 29 19:35 bsd.mp.last* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 6507939 Feb 1 16:10 bsd.ntfs* -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 5075779 Oct 26 17:20 bsd.rd -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 6504378 Feb 1 16:10 bsd.sp* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 6504282 Jan 29 19:35 bsd.sp.last* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 6507843 Jan 29 19:34 bsd.sp.ntfs.last*
Re: Turning NTFS on in GENERIC kernels
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 06:49:58PM -0500, STeve Andre' wrote: > ...If anyone has had a disaster reading NTFS data I'd like to hear it. It's not a *disaster* but I did have a failure to copy a file fron an NTFS partition ... just now. On a kernel built from cvs as of last night. It's a 5GB file, and the error occurred after about 580MB. It produced a kernel message, and my cp command stopped, but that was the only impact. My circumvention will be to pump it through the network, instead. Error from my dmesg: ntfs_readattr: offset too big: 595591168 (595656704) > 595634176 ntfs_read: ntfs_readattr failed: 7 So NTFS may work most of the time, but I think it is still experimental. (This is neither a complaint nor a problem report. Just an experience that coincided with your posting to misc@, STeve.)
Re: Turning NTFS on in GENERIC kernels
Hi, On Feb 5, 2008 11:49 PM, STeve Andre' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'd like to suggest that NTFS be enabled by default in GENERIC; > I realize that it can't be in the boot media because of size, but for > general work not having to compile a non-standard kernel would be a > win for a lot of people. Making it read-only as the default would > be the way to do it. How much bigger does the kernel get when you add this functionality? -- Best Regards Edd http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
Re: Turning NTFS on in GENERIC kernels
Bah! I don't want NTFS enabled by default. On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 06:49:58PM -0500, STeve Andre' wrote: >For some time now, I've been using the NTFS code in GENERIC. Lately > I've been subjected to an ever increasing number of Windows Sheep who > have infected themselves. My proceedure these days is to take the disk > out of the machine and stuff it into mine, mount it and extract data > before scrubbing the mindless thing and starting over... > >From my experience NTFS read-only access to disks has been flawless. > I think the largest amount of data I've extracted has been about 70G. > Given that XP systems essentially demand NTFS, having the ability to > read it is crucial when dealing with the hapless. > >I'd like to suggest that NTFS be enabled by default in GENERIC; > I realize that it can't be in the boot media because of size, but for > general work not having to compile a non-standard kernel would be a > win for a lot of people. Making it read-only as the default would > be the way to do it. > >If anyone has had a disaster reading NTFS data I'd like to hear it. > > > --STeve Andre'
