Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

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. >> >> >> FAT32 won't work for me since I need to

[gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

Am Thu, 1 Sep 2016 23:02:17 +0100 schrieb Neil Bothwick : > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 23:50:17 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > That's not true. Whoever owns the files and directories will be > > > able to access then, even if root mounted the stick, just like a >

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On 02/09/2016 00:56, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Wed, 31 Aug 2016 02:32:24 +0200 schrieb Alan McKinnon : 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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Kai Krakow wrote: > Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:59:02 -0400 > schrieb Rich Freeman : > >> >> That depends on the mode of operation. In journal=data I believe >> everything gets written twice, which should make it fairly immune to

[gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

Am Wed, 31 Aug 2016 02:32:24 +0200 schrieb Alan McKinnon : > 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

[gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:59:02 -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman : > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann > wrote: > > > > the journal does not add any data integrity benefits at all. It just > > makes it more likely that the fs is in a sane

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 23:50:17 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote: > > > ext2 will work, but you'll have to mount it or chmod -R 0777, or > > > only root will be able to access it. > > > > That's not true. Whoever owns the files and directories will be able > > to access then, even if root mounted the

[gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:27:46 +0200 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann : > Am 30.08.2016 um 21:14 schrieb J. Roeleveld: > > On August 30, 2016 8:58:17 PM GMT+02:00, Volker Armin Hemmann > > wrote: > >> Am 30.08.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Alan

[gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:38:26 +0100 schrieb Neil Bothwick : > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 06:46:54 +0100, Mick wrote: > > > > So I'm done with NTFS forever. Will ext2 somehow allow me to use > > > the USB stick across Gentoo systems without permission/ownership > > > problems? > > >

[gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

Am Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:51:19 -0700 schrieb Grant : > > # mount -o loop,ro -t ntfs usb.img /mnt/usbstick > > NTFS signature is missing. > > Failed to mount '/dev/loop0': Invalid argument > > The device '/dev/loop0' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS. > > Maybe the wrong device

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > a common misconception. But not true at all. Google a bit. Feel free to enlighten us. My understanding is that data=journal means that all data gets written first to the journal. Completed writes will

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

Am 31.08.2016 um 16:33 schrieb Michael Mol: > > In data=journal mode, the contents of files pass through the journal as well, > ensuring that, at least as far as the filesystem's responsibility is > concerned, > the data will be intact in the event of a crash. a common misconception. But not

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > The sad truth is that many (most?) users don't understand the idea of > unmounting. Even Microsoft largely gave up, having flash drives "optimized for > data safety" as opposed to "optimized for speed". While it'd be nice

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Thursday, September 01, 2016 04:21:18 PM J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Thursday, September 01, 2016 08:41:39 AM Michael Mol wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM Alan McKinnon wrote: > > > On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote: > > > >> Which NTFS system are you using? > > > >> > > > >>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Thursday, September 01, 2016 09:35:15 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > The defaults for vm.dirty_bytes and vm.dirty_background_bytes are, IMO, > > badly broken and an insidious source of problems for both regular Linux > > users

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Thursday, September 01, 2016 08:41:39 AM Michael Mol wrote: > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote: > > >> Which NTFS system are you using? > > >> > > >> ntfs kernel module? It's quite dodgy and unsafe with writes > > >> ntfs-ng on

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > The defaults for vm.dirty_bytes and vm.dirty_background_bytes are, IMO, badly > broken and an insidious source of problems for both regular Linux users and > system administrators. > It depends on whether you tend to yank

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote: > >> 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 > > > > I'm using ntfs-ng as opposed to

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On 01/09/2016 05:42, J. Roeleveld wrote: > On August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM GMT+02:00, Alan McKinnon > wrote: >> On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote: > Is there a > filesystem that will make that unnecessary and exhibit better > reliability than NTFS?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM GMT+02:00, Alan McKinnon wrote: >On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote: 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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote: 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. FAT32 won't work for me since I need to use

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:09:43 -0400, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > Have you considered using cloud storage for the files instead? That > > also gives you the option of version control with some services. > > The initial backup of my hard drives would easily burn through my > monthly

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 08:47:11AM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:45:22 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: > > > USB sticks are not that reliable to start with, so > > relying on the filesystem to preserve your important files is not > > enough. You have spent far more time on this

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:12:15 AM Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >> Am 30.08.2016 um 23:59 schrieb Rich Freeman: >> > >> > That depends on the mode of operation. In journal=data I believe >> > everything gets written

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

>> 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. FAT32 won't work for me since I need to use files larger than

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:12:15 AM Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > Am 30.08.2016 um 23:59 schrieb Rich Freeman: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann > > > > wrote: > >> the journal does not add any data integrity benefits at all. It just >

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:30:42 +0200, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > On Wed Aug 31 08:47:11 2016, Neil Bothwick wrote: > > Have you considered using cloud storage for the files instead? That > > also gives you the option of version control with some services. > > Seriously, why cloud? The Cloud is

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > On Wed Aug 31 08:47:11 2016, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> Have you considered using cloud storage for the files instead? That also >> gives you the option of version control with some services. > > Seriously, why cloud? The

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Wed Aug 31 08:47:11 2016, Neil Bothwick wrote: > Have you considered using cloud storage for the files instead? That also > gives you the option of version control with some services. Seriously, why cloud? The Cloud is basically a marketing term that define “Internet, like before, but cooler”,

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:45:22 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: > USB sticks are not that reliable to start with, so > relying on the filesystem to preserve your important files is not > enough. You have spent far more time on this than you would have spent > making backups of the file! Have you

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:08:26 -0700, 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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On 31/08/2016 02:08, Grant wrote: And why use exfat if you use linux? It is just not needed at all. >>> >>> I agree. If you want to transport something between Linux systems, >>> use ext2/3 and use "mount" options to handle the permission issues. >> >> You can't control ownership and

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

>> > And why use exfat if you use linux? It is just not needed at all. >> >> I agree. If you want to transport something between Linux systems, >> use ext2/3 and use "mount" options to handle the permission issues. > > You can't control ownership and permissions of existing files with mount >

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On 31/08/2016 01:06, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2016-08-30, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:42:05 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: >> And why use exfat if you use linux? It is just not needed at all. >>> >>> I agree. If you want to transport something

[gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On 2016-08-30, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:42:05 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: > >> > And why use exfat if you use linux? It is just not needed at all. >> >> I agree. If you want to transport something between Linux systems, >> use ext2/3 and use

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:42:05 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: > > And why use exfat if you use linux? It is just not needed at all. > > I agree. If you want to transport something between Linux systems, > use ext2/3 and use "mount" options to handle the permission issues. You can't control

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

Am 30.08.2016 um 23:59 schrieb Rich Freeman: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann > wrote: >> the journal does not add any data integrity benefits at all. It just >> makes it more likely that the fs is in a sane state if there is a crash. >> Likely.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > the journal does not add any data integrity benefits at all. It just > makes it more likely that the fs is in a sane state if there is a crash. > Likely. Not a guarantee. Your data? No one cares. > That

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

Am 30.08.2016 um 22:46 schrieb Rich Freeman: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Grant Edwards > wrote: >> There's nothing in Gentoo that guarantees everybody has ext2 support >> in their kernels. That said, I agree that ext2 (or perhaps ext3 with >> journalling

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > > There's nothing in Gentoo that guarantees everybody has ext2 support > in their kernels. That said, I agree that ext2 (or perhaps ext3 with > journalling disabled -- I've always been a bit fuzzy on whether

[gentoo-user] Re: USB crucial file recovery

On 2016-08-30, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > ext2 is on every system, Unless it isn't. There's nothing in Gentoo that guarantees everybody has ext2 support in their kernels. That said, I agree that ext2 (or perhaps ext3 with journalling disabled -- I've always been