[techtalk] Re: FAT32 or NTFS on XP pro: WAS > Re: Disk errors in Event Viewer IBM Drives
- From: Thomas Hurst <tom.hurst@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Thomas Hurst <techtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 17:40:18 +0100
* Tim Seifert (sir_tim_seifert@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> I'm not prepared to stick my neck on the block and say something computer
> related *is* robust.
No, but you should be prepared to say NTFS is *more* robust than FAT;
that's not exactly high praise given how easy FAT is to break :)
> I've a friend with NTFS on his machines (Win2000 and WinXP), and he
> manages to hose it up from time to time.
What on earth does he do with it? I have roughly half a TB of data
stored using NTFS, and while I'd really rather use UFS2+SU, NTFS has
been nothing but rock solid. I play plenty of games and such and
sometimes even crash my machine... maybe your friend has some dodgy
hardware :)
> Personally, I'd rather avoid Windows, completely. ;-)
Ah, it's not that bad. I wouldn't touch anything below 2000, and it
still has a lot of annoyances, but so does every OS.
> But then there are some people who have a need for some Win98 PC about
> the place for a special task.
If I absolutely had to, I could dedicate a few machines to 9X (*glances
at big pile in corner resembling the Sears Tower*), but in such cases
I'd be inclined to recommend VMWare or VirtualPC.
> I've dabbled with dual booting, but it's a pain.
Yup; way too easy to blat one OS or bootloader with another.
> I settled for dedicated a machine to Linux, and another is nearly
> always Windows,
I have a dedicated Linux machine (a 1.4GHz Athlon w/ 512M; my old
desktop), a dedicated FreeBSD machine (a dual 533MHz Celeron w/ 768M; my
older desktop), and two dedicated Windows XP machines (a 1GHz Athlon w/
256M; my mum's desktop, and an XP2500+ w/ 1G, which is my main desktop).
The Linux machine is liable to get blatted with FreeBSD -CURRENT, mainly
because Linux does nothing but irritate me and I have testing to do
with FreeBSD I'd rather keep off production machines.
I'm also concidering an upgrade of the XP 2500; even overclocked to
3200+ it's too slow for my tastes. Mmmm, maybe I should go dual Opteron
;)
> I wonder how long it'll be before we get hard drives that act as a file
> server?
Meh, a HD is the wrong place to be doing that; you don't want your HD to
have it's own unchangable filesystem and wasting logic on networking and
NFS/Samba and management tools and such. What happens when the
filesystem gets corrupt and you can't access it directly to fix it? How
do you RAID devices like that? How do you optimize filesystem choice
and setup?
I will mock any company which comes up with such a device :)
> Rather than sit a file server (a dedicated computer with drives) on
> the shelf that doesn't care what other systems use it for storage,
> have all of that functionality inside the hard drive (you store files
> on it, the drive is the only thing that cares how it works - you could
> plug it into anything with the same connector, and work on it with no
> differences in operation).
This is the job of an enclosure; HD's are best working at lower levels
where you can upgrade just by swapping a drive out and not having to buy
an expensive special purpose drive with a lot of extra logic on board.
*That* I can see happening and actually being vaguely sane.
--
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - freaky@xxxxxxxx - http://www.aagh.net/
Other related posts:
