Using FAT32 with Linux 32
jsparkes asks:
"I haven't been able to find definitive information on
mounting FAT32 filesystems in linux. It seems like it was
implemented by Gordon Chaffee, who has
this Fat32 homepage. It seems that it was added in
2.0.34 and should also be in 2.2.X. Does it work? Is just
like an ext2 fs, or are there limitations? I'd like to
dual boot linux and win98, but if I can't use my large
FAT32 partitions, it would be pointless. (I have a 10G
win98 drive, and will use a 1.2G for linux..)"
Here's my solution (Score:1)
Compile and use kernel 2.2.xx Here's the tricky part: try and keep your kernel config as minimal as can be, regarding harddrives and filesystems. There's stuff about VFAT in the config utility. I can't remember if I turned it on or off, but if you try it set to on and it don't work, try it off...
The other thing is that when I set up the system with RedHat 5.2, I used Disk Druid to set up the directory structure for the FAT32 partitions. Of course, you can do this manually, I just forget how... I know that RedHat's configuration utility in X can map paths to partitions as well.
Finally, this will end up as having only root as having write access to the mounted partitions. So, login as root and give other users wrote and read access as needed.
This *should* give you a working FAT32 read/write set up under kernel 2.2 For some reason, I couldn't get it to work under 2.0.xx, but it wasn't really necessary, so I didn't mind.
Just like FAT16 (Score:1)
fsck.vfat ? (Score:1)
fat32 on linux (Score:1)
I run RedHat 5.2 and win98 on separate hard drives over here and so far linux has had no trouble reading the windoze drive. All I did was set it to mount with everytime linux boots and it works great. sees all the files and has no trouble manipulating them.
Also you can go the other way.... (Score:1)
There is also a utility that lets you see your Linux partition from Windows9* - a useful thing.
It's at: http://www.yipton.demon.co.uk/
Been supported for a while (Score:2)
fsck.vfat ? (Score:1)
vfat does work (Score:1)
vfat does work (Score:1)
ewww (Score:1)
Fat 32 + Linux (Score:1)
If you want to boot a linux system off a fat32 partition, I would recommend using UMSDOS, which is a simulated Linux filesystem that can live on fat partitions. It uses extra files and funny file names in the directory for UNIX file permissions, but it feels slower than a native ext2 filesystem so you may not want to use it for performance reasons. One of the few distributions that supports UMSDOS is Slackware with their Zipslack [slackware.com]. I just tried it out a couple weeks ago on a machine at home, and it is ok, but it's nowhere near the speed of my native ext2 system at school.
fat32 on NT means $$ (Score:1)
NT can't boot fram a FAT32 partition, but you can
keep C: as FAT16 and put your 95B/98 \WINDOWS dir
on a FAT32 D or higher.
The stuff about IE4 is complete rubbish. W95 OSR2
is needed for FAT32 - it is nothing whatsoever to
do with IE4. If you don't know for sure, don't go
ahead and say it anyway. Check!
FAT 32 (Score:1)
Re:Linux and FAT32 (Score:1)
Where I do have problems with using fat32 from linux is when I attempt to ls a directory with on the order of 1024 files. ls -l or ls -color take forever and a half because apparently ls is looking for inode info on each file and evidently isn't happy about it not being there. Also accessing those dirs over the samba share is horrendously slow as well. \ls (to get rid of my aliases) works fine. I don't know why the stat() calls aren't just returning whatever the inode values are for the whole filesystem. Guess I should read more of the source to see what is going on.
--
vfat does work (Score:1)
vfat does work (Score:1)
I have a NT 4.0 drive that is vfat. so when I read this I decided to test it.
I umount my NT partition as I had been mounting it as msdos. (umount /ntfat)
then I mounted it.
it worked, with long filenames and everything looks pretty cool.. oh my NT partition is vfat32 not NTFS. when I originally installed NT I wanted to be able to use msdos atleast.
both msdos and vfat will work, but vfat shows the long filenames.
I have now just changed my fstab to mount the drive as vfat from now on...
fat32 on NT means $$ (Score:1)
"Significant understanding of the NTFS file system layout was derived by studying the Linux-based NTFS driver code maintained by Martin von Loewis. We acknowledge his indirect contribution to this endeavor."
It's nice to know someone is cashing in on Linux.
1) NT can't boot off a fat32 partition, this means that win98/95 cant be fat32, and the nt partition cant be fat32.
2) Pre-OSR2 Win95 can be "upgraded" to fat32 by installing ie4, when you install it, it asks you for "Large Drive Support?" and it automagically converts the fat16->fat32 and boom it reads fat32.
FAT32 somewhat unstable (Score:1)
Tom Holroyd informed me that there were bugs in the FAT32 code that could be tickled by high load. One person countered that he had no problems with FAT32 under load.
In the mean time, I can still run cdda2wav on a different machine with a slower SCSI drive and write to the troublesome FAT32 partition over NFS.
Re:fsck.vfat ? (Score:1)
Anyway, after that preliminary blurb ("I feel much better now, Dave."), to the question: a fsck.vfat doesn't seem to exist, and the only real answer I found on DejaNews or anywhere else on the issue was from someone (sounding authorative) who stated that it's not the job of linux hackers to clean up the mess left behind by Microsoft.
Which is a rather striking argument.
Linux and FAT32 (Score:1)
Linux and FAT32 (Score:1)
I use about 650MB of MP3 files on one of my FAT32 partitions, both under Linux (X11amp) and Windoze (Winamp). No problems with the MP3's, even with several apps running (though Windoze tends to crash more often under these conditions, unrelated to Winamp). I'm on an AMD K6-2/400 with 128MB RAM. For what it's worth.
Documentation issue (Score:1)
issue. It does clearly say anywhere that FAT32
is supported.
I found out by installing linux and trying it, but
it would have been nice to know in advance.
FAT32 and Linux (Score:1)
Long filenames work, but you will still be at the mercy of the usual VFAT semantics, so all files are owned by one user (cf mount -o uid=XXX), long filenames are supported, but are case-insensitive, etc.
It appears that there are number of versions of fdisk out there that don't grok the FAT32X partition type. This is the >2GB partition size support for which M$ went and created yet another partition type. Don't worry about it, you can still mount these partitions just fine.
Tim
NT and FAT32 (Score:1)
NT and FAT32 (Score:1)
windows 95 cannot read FAT32 before OSR2 (OEM Service Release 2). i think that there was also some service pack for older win95's that allowed them to do so as well. win 98 reads FAT32 out of the box, of course. "Win2K Enterprise Edition" (back when it was called NT 5) was supposed to be the first NT derived kernel that would support FAT32 natively (without third-party utilities).
{ sorry to babble so much about M$ crap, but i figure that anyone who's reading three levels deep into a thread on Linux and FAT32 might be interested. }
md
Linux and FAT32 (Score:1)
fairly well for me. I changed the mounting gid to something that
contained my user id. Then I added a umask=007 to the fstab entry (where
defaults would normally appear). This makes everything rwxrwxr-x. That
should work.
On a side note, has anyone using vfat in linux had performance problems? I tried running mp3s off of a vfat partition and had serious problems with performance when my drive went under hard load. The problem went away once I moved them over to an ext2 partition. Same physical drive. My guess was that the caching on the vfat partition is not well implimented. Streaming off the vfat partition was done in many short reads, whereas the streaming off an ext2 partition was done in much fewer, but slightly longer reads. Has anyone else had performace issues with a vfat partition?