Pandora File Management

[fearofshorts]

Hey, I was just wondering exactly how file management on the SD cards will work.
I've heard that linux functions better with ext 2, 3 or 4 as the filesystem, and I can format the cards to that with a livecd and gparted if I want to, but will there be an easier method?
Will the Pandora itself be able to set up the SD cards?

And more importantly (assuming that one of the ext filesystems is the best choice for this purpose) how will a windows user be able to transfer data to the Pandora? I was hoping that the Pandora would sort of translate the incoming data across filesystems without issue. Will we be able to just plug the Pandora into a NTFS-hard-drive-running windows box (with the OTG port, I assume) and copy files across?

Or would Fat32 be a better bet?

More on that matter, what is the best cross-platform filesystem?

 

[kingoddball]

Probably FAT32. I'm sure it can use all Linux ext's.

 

[paulguy]

If it has the FUSE module installed, you can install ntfs-3g (if it's not already included) and mount and access NTFS volumes, it's just not greatly recommended. Honestly, I'd just say, as I said in another thread, to use FAT32 for your SD cards. You won't benefit from having permissions or anything on the SD cards, and they might just end up causing problems anyway. If you do choose to format your SD cards as ext4, or even if you just don't feel like removing them, you can use SAMBA to access the files over a windows network, where it really won't matter what filesystem you're using. There's also ext2ifs for Windows, which will access ext2/3 partitions on devices as long as they have 128 byte inodes, not 256. Also, the pandora should be able to format ext2/3/4, and likely even comes with the program to do so.. if it doesn't it's likely in the repository.

 

[fearofshorts]

Ah! Thanks for answering.
I'm glad that the Pandora will be able to work with FAT32, but the idea of using SAMBA seems interesting...

 

[michelsteeve]

Ah! Thanks for answering.
I'm glad that the Pandora will be able to work with FAT32, but the idea of using SAMBA seems interesting...

I iknow the use of FAT32. But I was never used SAMBA. How to use it??

 

[laurencevde]

Samba is the open-source-implementation of windows' network-shares (protocol was called smb, now cifs). Works fine, but the protocol suffers from high overhead. ftp is faster. If they can get the wifi-driver up to speed, you won't notice much of a speed-difference compared to usb, as the sd-cards will be the limiting factor.
If that doesn't work out, you can also use obexftp over bluetooth(bluetooth-file-transfer), or set up a networking-link over usb.
And if you really want to use it as a usb-mass-storage-device, or use the card in windows-machines, and are running >vista, I'd recommend formatting your card as UDF. That's a full-featured filesystem fully supported in all current main os's.
FAT32 is possible, but it's the worst choice. Only use it when the card's also used in other devices. It:
Suffers from easy filesystem-corruption
Doesn't support files >4GB
Doesn't support sym/hard-links (very handy, once you know what those are)
Doesn't support extended attributes
Doesn't support filesystem-permissions, including the execute-bit (not needed for personal data-storage, but don't put an os on it)
Is slow

 

[zhasha]

If you want to use an EXT file system, go with either ext2 or ext3 (in the case of an SD card, ext2 is probably the best bet) and install ext2ifs on you Windows box. Linux has a habit of supporting every damn filesystem out there, so it's really up to you and the OSs you plan to stick your SD card into to choose the best one.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

Doesn't support sym/hard-links (very handy, once you know what those are)

Symlinks are an OS-side issue, they work on any filesystem. It's just that Windows does not support those, Windows has only these crippled shortcuts. You can also let Samba follow them to use them inside network shares, but due to security reasons the Unix extensions should be disabled if they are supposed to point to folders outside the shared folder.

Linux has a habit of supporting every damn filesystem out there

Just keep your hands off exFAT

 

[skeezix]

99.9% of people will use FAT (windows) formatted SD cards, and be all good. You can use lotds of other filesystems.

You could also set up networking and ssh, ftp, etc to move things back and forth, piece of cake; we'll make walkthroughs when things ship

jeff

 

[zhasha]

Doesn't support sym/hard-links (very handy, once you know what those are)

Symlinks are an OS-side issue, they work on any filesystem. It's just that Windows does not support those, Windows has only these crippled shortcuts. You can also let Samba follow them to use them inside network shares, but due to security reasons the Unix extensions should be disabled if they are supposed to point to folders outside the shared folder.

Early implementations of symbolic links stored the symbolic link information as data in regular files. The file contained the textual reference to the link’s target, and an indicator denoting it as a symbolic link.
This method was slow and an inefficient use of disk-space on small systems. An improvement, called fast symlinks, allowed storage of the target path within the data structures used for storing file information on disk (inodes). This space normally stores a list of disk block addresses allocated to a file. Thus, symlinks with short target paths are accessed quickly. Systems with fast symlinks often fall back to using the original method if the target path exceeds the available inode space. The original style is retroactively termed a slow symlink. It is also used for disk compatibility with other or older versions of operating systems.

No dear friend, we have evolved since then. NTFS supports symlinks, but only directory-directory as far as I know, and FAT32 is out of the question. It's the storing the symlink on FAT32 that proves itself a bit difficult.

EDIT: yes, it can be done, but the FAT32 driver might well refuse to do it simply for the reason that no one else understands symlink files

I just tried on my USB memory key:

[zhasha@ztoshiba 34C9-FB16]$ ln -s AudioHijackPro.zip test_symlink.zip
ln: creating symbolic link `test_symlink.zip': Operation not permitted

Conversely:

[zhasha@ztoshiba 34C9-FB16]$ ln -s AudioHijackPro.zip ~/Desktop/test_symlink.zip

Works, just as expected.

EDIT more: Apparently I'm an idiot and the symlink, being stored as an inode doesn't work at all to or from FAT filesystems

 

[Letalis Sonus]

Okay, did some research myself. NTFS supports both directory and file symlinks, starting with NT 6 you can even do it through the Win32 API (are these 'real' Windows Symlinks compatible with Linux?). The last time I opened a Linux symlink from within Windows on a NTFS partition it looked like a normal XML file which surprised me a bit.

 

[michaeljustman]

Linux doesn't have support for NTFS junctions as far as I can tell... the last time that I mounted a NTFS partition with juctions on linux they just showed up as 0 byte files.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

Junctions are something different, NTFS also supports real symlinks -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS#Symbolic_links