Want to switch my windows file server to linux, need some help

[coolred]

Here is a link to my original thread a while back, when i was trying to decide if I should use windows or linux when I first built the server.

I chose windows since I was having trouble understanding how linux would handle my windows files. But windows crashed on me and I think I am ready to give linux another shot.I am leaning heavily towards Fedora Core as my distro. From my last thread, i hear it has a nice GUI for samba, and also it has recently been installe don one of my machines at work, so I would like to learn to use it better. I don't actually have to use the OS really at work, it just runs a program we use, so all I really need to know is how to run that program, but knowing more can't hurt.

So here goes, I have a 36GB WD raptor, which will be my OS drive, think that will be sufficent? I have another 300GB(or maybe it was 250, I don't recall) SATA drive, 2x250GB IDE drives and 1 more 80GB 5400 rpm drive(this one SMART tells me is going bad, so it will likely get backed up to one of the other drives and then either trashed or put in another machine for stuff that I may nto be too worried about if I lose. 1 of the 250GB drives is exmpty, I just copied what was on it to another drive. The other 2 drives, 1 is pretty full and the other is about half. These drives are all NTFS partitions

Now from what I got from my original thread, linux has poor read/write abilities to NTFS partitions, and windows does not support ext3 at all. I was informed that an easy way around this is to have 1 FAT32 partition shared between the 2 machines(maybe I could use my 80GB drive for this). Basically I am still just slightly confused about the handling of the files and file systems.

All I really need the linux system to do is share the drives to my laptop and main machine, both windows xp. Obviously I want to play with the linux machine, but don't know how often i would need to access the NTFS partitions from linux. But if I do, will the FAT32 partition allow me to move files between the NTFS and ext3 file systems?

I was told in the other thread that my best option is to back up all my NTFS drives and then reformat them all to ext3 and then put the data back on them, so that way i will have full read and write to them under linux, and samba will still allow me to read/write to them from my windows machines right? Backing up all this data sounds like a chore, especially since I don't currently have an OS on that machine. So is this my best option? And if so, how should I go about it?

I guess thats it for now, but I will probablly have more questions later.


Cliffs Notes:
Have an old windows server with several NTFS drives
Want to move from windows to linux(Fedora Core most likely)
Need to know what I need to know to get access to my files on the linux machine, from the windows machines.
Also wondering if it is worth it and what th ebest way would be to access my drives form the linux machine itself.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: coolred
Here is a link to my original thread a while back, when i was trying to decide if I should use windows or linux when I first built the server.

I chose windows since I was having trouble understanding how linux would handle my windows files. But windows crashed on me and I think I am ready to give linux another shot.I am leaning heavily towards Fedora Core as my distro. From my last thread, i hear it has a nice GUI for samba, and also it has recently been installe don one of my machines at work, so I would like to learn to use it better. I don't actually have to use the OS really at work, it just runs a program we use, so all I really need to know is how to run that program, but knowing more can't hurt.

Cool. Let me see if I can help.

Originally posted by: coolred
So here goes, I have a 36GB WD raptor, which will be my OS drive, think that will be sufficent? I have another 300GB(or maybe it was 250, I don't recall) SATA drive, 2x250GB IDE drives and 1 more 80GB 5400 rpm drive(this one SMART tells me is going bad, so it will likely get backed up to one of the other drives and then either trashed or put in another machine for stuff that I may nto be too worried about if I lose. 1 of the 250GB drives is exmpty, I just copied what was on it to another drive. The other 2 drives, 1 is pretty full and the other is about half. These drives are all NTFS partitions

Now from what I got from my original thread, linux has poor read/write abilities to NTFS partitions, and windows does not support ext3 at all. I was informed that an easy way around this is to have 1 FAT32 partition shared between the 2 machines(maybe I could use my 80GB drive for this). Basically I am still just slightly confused about the handling of the files and file systems.

Yeah, a 36GB raptor is more than sufficient. Linux can read/write from ntfs just fine with captiventfs. Suse has some easy scripts to run, but with Fedora it should be just as easy to setup. Windows can easily support ext3 btw. There are actual file system drivers available for it so once you install it, Windows can detect ext3 partitions and assign it a letter drive (like C: or D: ) just like ntfs and fat32. Check it out.

Originally posted by: coolred
All I really need the linux system to do is share the drives to my laptop and main machine, both windows xp. Obviously I want to play with the linux machine, but don't know how often i would need to access the NTFS partitions from linux. But if I do, will the FAT32 partition allow me to move files between the NTFS and ext3 file systems?

I was told in the other thread that my best option is to back up all my NTFS drives and then reformat them all to ext3 and then put the data back on them, so that way i will have full read and write to them under linux, and samba will still allow me to read/write to them from my windows machines right? Backing up all this data sounds like a chore, especially since I don't currently have an OS on that machine. So is this my best option? And if so, how should I go about it?

Of course it'd always be best to use native filesystems in linux like ext3 and reiserfs, but here's what you could do:

Install FC5 on the machine on the raptor hard drive. If one of the 250GB is already empty I would go ahead and format it with reiserfs for a nice fast hard drive. The second 250GB, 300GB, and maybe 80GB are already as ntfs (right?) so if you don't feel like backing up all your data you can install captive ntfs and have them all mounted as that. Then the last thing you'll need to do is just setup samba to share all your drives.

Originally posted by: coolred
I guess thats it for now, but I will probablly have more questions later.

Sure. Btw let me just say, I'm using captive-ntfs right now on my ntfs partition and it works flawlessly. Full read/write.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Windows cannot read ext3fs without reverting to ext2fs compatibility.

You should be backing up your data anyways. So start burning DVDs or something.

Convert all drives to ext3 and restore the data from the backups.

Don't trust NTFS implimentations for Linux for anything you want to keep.

 

[coolred]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: coolred
Here is a link to my original thread a while back, when i was trying to decide if I should use windows or linux when I first built the server.

I chose windows since I was having trouble understanding how linux would handle my windows files. But windows crashed on me and I think I am ready to give linux another shot.I am leaning heavily towards Fedora Core as my distro. From my last thread, i hear it has a nice GUI for samba, and also it has recently been installe don one of my machines at work, so I would like to learn to use it better. I don't actually have to use the OS really at work, it just runs a program we use, so all I really need to know is how to run that program, but knowing more can't hurt.

Cool. Let me see if I can help.

Originally posted by: coolred
So here goes, I have a 36GB WD raptor, which will be my OS drive, think that will be sufficent? I have another 300GB(or maybe it was 250, I don't recall) SATA drive, 2x250GB IDE drives and 1 more 80GB 5400 rpm drive(this one SMART tells me is going bad, so it will likely get backed up to one of the other drives and then either trashed or put in another machine for stuff that I may nto be too worried about if I lose. 1 of the 250GB drives is exmpty, I just copied what was on it to another drive. The other 2 drives, 1 is pretty full and the other is about half. These drives are all NTFS partitions

Now from what I got from my original thread, linux has poor read/write abilities to NTFS partitions, and windows does not support ext3 at all. I was informed that an easy way around this is to have 1 FAT32 partition shared between the 2 machines(maybe I could use my 80GB drive for this). Basically I am still just slightly confused about the handling of the files and file systems.

Yeah, a 36GB raptor is more than sufficient. Linux can read/write from ntfs just fine with captiventfs. Suse has some easy scripts to run, but with Fedora it should be just as easy to setup. Windows can easily support ext3 btw. There are actual file system drivers available for it so once you install it, Windows can detect ext3 partitions and assign it a letter drive (like C: or D: ) just like ntfs and fat32. Check it out.

Originally posted by: coolred
All I really need the linux system to do is share the drives to my laptop and main machine, both windows xp. Obviously I want to play with the linux machine, but don't know how often i would need to access the NTFS partitions from linux. But if I do, will the FAT32 partition allow me to move files between the NTFS and ext3 file systems?

I was told in the other thread that my best option is to back up all my NTFS drives and then reformat them all to ext3 and then put the data back on them, so that way i will have full read and write to them under linux, and samba will still allow me to read/write to them from my windows machines right? Backing up all this data sounds like a chore, especially since I don't currently have an OS on that machine. So is this my best option? And if so, how should I go about it?

Of course it'd always be best to use native filesystems in linux like ext3 and reiserfs, but here's what you could do:

Install FC5 on the machine on the raptor hard drive. If one of the 250GB is already empty I would go ahead and format it with reiserfs for a nice fast hard drive. The second 250GB, 300GB, and maybe 80GB are already as ntfs (right?) so if you don't feel like backing up all your data you can install captive ntfs and have them all mounted as that. Then the last thing you'll need to do is just setup samba to share all your drives.

Originally posted by: coolred
I guess thats it for now, but I will probablly have more questions later.

Sure. Btw let me just say, I'm using captive-ntfs right now on my ntfs partition and it works flawlessly. Full read/write.

I have just skimmed your post, will give it a through look through later, it looks interesting though.

n0cmonkey, if I do burn my data to DVD can i do that after I install fedora, or do I need to install windows, do the burns then install FC% and format with ext3 or whatever. And for the record most of what is currently on the file server is not stuff I absolutely need. Obviously theres some adult material, but its nothing I can't live without or get back anyhow. There are some pictures and maybe a few movies I need to back up, but again the movies aren't of absolute importance, and I think the pictures, oh and my music, is also on my main rig, so technically it is already backed up. But if it is easy enough to do, then i will back it up.

Problem is I am having trouble with installing windows on that system. I am not totally sure what originally caused it to crash either. But when I do the install, windows copies the files it needs, then reboots and completes the install. But if I reboot again after that I usually get a boot disk failure, or a missing or corrupt file, and on occasion it will give me a boot menu to choose from 2-3 OS's. I am guessing I may have had an old windows isntall on one of the other drives, I can get it to boot with just my fresh OS drive plugged in, but that doesn't help me to back up data from the other drives. Although I guess when it boots into windows originally I might be able to back up straight from there assuming I can install the few drivers I need without having to reboot.


Also if you could clear up one thing for me. If I have no need to access the windows drives from linux or the linux drive from windows, then will samba do everything needed to convert the files for use between the machines? Basically I want the NTFS drives to show up as shared drives in my windows machines, samba can do this right? What if I create or download a new file in windows and want to save it to one of the drives in the file server, will samba allow the file to be written to the NTFS file system, and is this reliable or is it risky?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Run memtest86 over night. Make sure your cables are plugged in snugly.

You could install Fedora, and format the empty 250GB drive. Copy the data off of one of the other drives, format the other drive, and copy the next drive's contents onto it. SleepWalkerX kinda mentioned this, but I disagree on any NTFS on Linux solution being good enough.

will samba do everything needed to convert the files for use between the machines?

What kind of conversion do they need?

I want the NTFS drives to show up as shared drives in my windows machines, samba can do this right?

If Linux can read them, then yes. The underlying filesystem shouldn't matter much.

What if I create or download a new file in windows and want to save it to one of the drives in the file server, will samba allow the file to be written to the NTFS file system, and is this reliable or is it risky?

Only if you use one of the crappy NTFS implimentations for Linux that allows you to write to NTFS, but I'd drop that filesystem and use something native.

 

[Nothinman]

I was told in the other thread that my best option is to back up all my NTFS drives and then reformat them all to ext3 and then put the data back on them, so that way i will have full read and write to them under linux, and samba will still allow me to read/write to them from my windows machines right? Backing up all this data sounds like a chore, especially since I don't currently have an OS on that machine. So is this my best option? And if so, how should I go about it?

Yes it most definitely is, you do not want to rely on NTFS write support in Linux in any way.

Linux can read/write from ntfs just fine with captiventfs.

But it's really not recommended, either use a real Linux filesystem or don't use Linux.

Install FC5 on the machine on the raptor hard drive. If one of the 250GB is already empty I would go ahead and format it with reiserfs for a nice fast hard drive.

I would recommend against reiserfs, he's already had problems so there's no need to set him up for more. =)

if I do burn my data to DVD can i do that after I install fedora, or do I need to install windows, do the burns then install FC% and format with ext3 or whatever.

You should be able to burn the DVDs in FC just fine using growisofs.

Problem is I am having trouble with installing windows on that system. I am not totally sure what originally caused it to crash either. But when I do the install, windows copies the files it needs, then reboots and completes the install. But if I reboot again after that I usually get a boot disk failure, or a missing or corrupt file, and on occasion it will give me a boot menu to choose from 2-3 OS's. I am guessing I may have had an old windows isntall on one of the other drives, I can get it to boot with just my fresh OS drive plugged in, but that doesn't help me to back up data from the other drives. Although I guess when it boots into windows originally I might be able to back up straight from there assuming I can install the few drivers I need without having to reboot.

Sounds like more of a hardware problem than a software one.

Also if you could clear up one thing for me. If I have no need to access the windows drives from linux or the linux drive from windows, then will samba do everything needed to convert the files for use between the machines? Basically I want the NTFS drives to show up as shared drives in my windows machines, samba can do this right? What if I create or download a new file in windows and want to save it to one of the drives in the file server, will samba allow the file to be written to the NTFS file system, and is this reliable or is it risky?

For network access the filesystem doesn't matter at all. Linux can read it's filesystem and Windows can read it's filesystems, the data being transferred between them is independent of the filesystems. How do you think you're able to access all of those websites hosted on unix boxes? Do you really think they have NTFS filesystems in them?

 

[coolred]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Run memtest86 over night. Make sure your cables are plugged in snugly.

You could install Fedora, and format the empty 250GB drive. Copy the data off of one of the other drives, format the other drive, and copy the next drive's contents onto it. SleepWalkerX kinda mentioned this, but I disagree on any NTFS on Linux solution being good enough.

will samba do everything needed to convert the files for use between the machines?

What kind of conversion do they need?

I want the NTFS drives to show up as shared drives in my windows machines, samba can do this right?

If Linux can read them, then yes. The underlying filesystem shouldn't matter much.

What if I create or download a new file in windows and want to save it to one of the drives in the file server, will samba allow the file to be written to the NTFS file system, and is this reliable or is it risky?

Only if you use one of the crappy NTFS implimentations for Linux that allows you to write to NTFS, but I'd drop that filesystem and use something native.

The drive cables are all secure. I ran memtest for an hour with no problems, will run overnight tonight though.

I tried installing FC5. The instal went fine, but on reboot I get an error loading operating system, or something to that effect. So there is definately an issue. I even tried booting with just the cdrom and the OS drive plugged in, still got the error. The memory is corsair, so its good stuff, and only a few months old. Not saying its not the problem, but it would seem odd to me if it were. Any other ideas I can try?

 

[coolred]

well i reinstall FC5 again and it did boot this time, trying a reboot now. It also just dawned on me that backup by DVD is not a great option, with over 300GB of data, it would take like over 70 DVD's to back it all up.

 

[silverpig]

Just do what n0cmonkey suggested. Format the first 250 GB drive to ext3 or whatever your preferred linux filesystem is, copy the data from the other 250 GB drive to it, then format the second 250 GB drive. Copy the 300 GB data to it, format the 300 GB drive...

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Of course I'd always recommend using native linux filesystems, but its not necessary. Captive-ntfs has been extremely stable for me.

Here's my performance:

suse:/ # hdparm -Tt /dev/hdc1

/dev/hdc1:
Timing cached reads: 2064 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1030.75 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 118 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.16 MB/sec
suse:/ # hdparm -Tt /dev/hdc2

/dev/hdc2:
Timing cached reads: 2348 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1172.89 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 92 MB in 3.02 seconds = 30.50 MB/sec

hdc1 is my Suse XFS partition. hdc2 is my Windows NTFS partition. Depends on how willing you are to change partitions to a native linux one to have better performance. Like I said, better performance, but not necessary. Plus captive-ntfs is easy to install.. Just saying..

Oh and btw, I would use the ReiserFS filesystem if you plan on working (copying/moving/deleting/etc) with lots of smaller files. ReiserFS excells in that. I'd recommend the XFS partition if you plan on working with lots of big files. Maybe even JFS if you're worried about cpu usage as its the best when it comes to that and its an all around top performer (I need to play with this one more, it beat or tied with ReiserFS and XFS in a TON of catagories, I'll pull out a link if you want to see ). All of these are faster filesystems than ext3. And if Novell's SLED 10 (I believe SLES 10 too) and Suse 10.1 try to install ReiserFS by default then that means its very mature by now (maybe not perfect, but still very mature).

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Yes it most definitely is, you do not want to rely on NTFS write support in Linux in any way.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
But it's really not recommended, either use a real Linux filesystem or don't use Linux.

Or if you need to access stuff from an ntfs partition.. Its not like you can install linux on an ntfs partition (well maybe there's a way, but that's just retarded). If you have over 150 gigs of files on the ntfs partition with lots of small files there's no need to go through the pain of migrating everything to a new partition when it can be read just fine. It all depends on how willing the user is. Lastly, let me reiterate I always recommend linux users to rely on native linux filesystems whenever possible. Just informing him of all his options.

 

[Nothinman]

Captive-ntfs has been extremely stable for me.

"for me" being the key words there.

hdc1 is my Suse XFS partition. hdc2 is my Windows NTFS partition.

Sadly hdparm performance is irrelevant since it ignores the filesystem completely. If you tested 2 partitions on the same disk and they weren't almost the same I'd be worried, I'd guess the ~9M difference you're seeing is just from the locations on the disk where the partitions reside.

Oh and btw, I would use the ReiserFS filesystem if you plan on working (copying/moving/deleting/etc) with lots of smaller files. ReiserFS excells in that.

It definitely excells at deleting, not sure about the rest though. =)

And if Novell's SLED 10 (I believe SLES 10 too) and Suse 10.1 try to install ReiserFS by default then that means its very mature by now (maybe not perfect, but still very mature).

Every time I've thought "maybe reiserfs is stable now" and given it a try it's resulted in a backup/mkfs/restore procedure so I won't be touching it again and nor will I be touching reiser4 either.

Just informing him of all his options.

True, but the same can be said of telling someone that they don't need to worry about keeping track of their car keys when they can just break open the steering column and start it with a screw driver. Yes it's possible, but it's not really a good idea.

 

[cleverhandle]

There's no reason at all to be using NTFS here, Sleepwalker. He's building a Linux file server, not sharing a partition in a dual-boot or something. I haven't followed captive-ntfs, so maybe it's relatively OK compared to the older NTFS support. But why, in a pure Linux server, would be it worth taking even a marginal chance on an relatively untested driver when he could use ext3 or XFS instead? NTFS gains him no functionality. There's no way on earth I'd trust hundreds of gigabytes of my data to an unproven filesystem driver when doing so gains me nothing. He's got the extra disk, just copy it over like silverpig described.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Captive-ntfs has been extremely stable for me.

"for me" being the key words there.

Well you can't much safer than actually using the Window's NTFS driver and writing a wrapper for it, at least for the linux os. He has a couple testimonials on his main page and I've yet to hear about any stories where files or the actual partition is permanently destroyed or damaged although I'm not saying its bug-free. Not sure how well I can convince someone about something without him actually trying it..

Originally posted by: Nothinman

hdc1 is my Suse XFS partition. hdc2 is my Windows NTFS partition.

Sadly hdparm performance is irrelevant since it ignores the filesystem completely. If you tested 2 partitions on the same disk and they weren't almost the same I'd be worried, I'd guess the ~9M difference you're seeing is just from the locations on the disk where the partitions reside.

Well I'm sure a lot of factors play here, but at least the performance is not crap.

Originally posted by: Nothinman

And if Novell's SLED 10 (I believe SLES 10 too) and Suse 10.1 try to install ReiserFS by default then that means its very mature by now (maybe not perfect, but still very mature).

Every time I've thought "maybe reiserfs is stable now" and given it a try it's resulted in a backup/mkfs/restore procedure so I won't be touching it again and nor will I be touching reiser4 either.

Try giving it another try with the latest kernel. Let bygones be bygones. I hope you're at least using something faster than ext3?

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Just informing him of all his options.

True, but the same can be said of telling someone that they don't need to worry about keeping track of their car keys when they can just break open the steering column and start it with a screw driver. Yes it's possible, but it's not really a good idea.

I know what you're trying to say, but I find that a bad analogy. Sorry, just not one for analogies.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: cleverhandle
There's no reason at all to be using NTFS here, Sleepwalker. He's building a Linux file server, not sharing a partition in a dual-boot or something. I haven't followed captive-ntfs, so maybe it's relatively OK compared to the older NTFS support. But why, in a pure Linux server, would be it worth taking even a marginal chance on an relatively untested driver when he could use ext3 or XFS instead? NTFS gains him no functionality. There's no way on earth I'd trust hundreds of gigabytes of my data to an unproven filesystem driver when doing so gains me nothing. He's got the extra disk, just copy it over like silverpig described.

Like I said, I'm letting him know of all his options. Especially with something that's always worked well for me. I've reiterated two times before, but I want to make sure everybody knows,

I always recommend linux users to rely on native linux filesystems whenever possible.

Now it comes down to how willing the user is to spend time backing up and moving all his data to another partition which again I hgihly recommend him do!

And btw, its been proven time and time again. That's why its used in Kanotix, Knoppix, and Insert by default..

 

[doan]

before you jump into linux, make sure all the drive controllers you're using on your server are fully supported in linux. I tried the same thing and went back to windows. My server has 3 IDE controllers: standard onboard, HighPoint, and promise. either the highpoint or the promise never worked 100% (i don't remember which).

 

[cleverhandle]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Like I said, I'm letting him know of all his options. Especially with something that's always worked well for me. I've reiterated two times before, but I want to make sure everybody knows

Honestly, it appears to me that you're just thinly veiling your enthusiasm to show that you run NTFS in Linux. And in doing so, you're leading the OP in the wrong direction. Why not suggest that the OP use ext2? or FAT32? or minixfs? Those are all options, aren't they?

Let see what the three filesystems under discussion have to offer. Specifically, what they positively have to offer, not the just the fact that they won't eat your data.

Ext3: Supported by every distro and rescue disk under the sun; utterly stable and predictable; massive installed base makes it easy to find tools or help

XFS: Arguably the best all-around performer in Linux filesystems; advanced quota and ACL features (historically, though ext3 is pretty well caught up by now AFAIK)

NTFS: Saves the OP from having to do a one-time copy of data between disks; you like it

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: cleverhandle

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Like I said, I'm letting him know of all his options. Especially with something that's always worked well for me. I've reiterated two times before, but I want to make sure everybody knows

Honestly, it appears to me that you're just thinly veiling your enthusiasm to show that you run NTFS in Linux. And in doing so, you're leading the OP in the wrong direction. Why not suggest that the OP use ext2? or FAT32? or minixfs? Those are all options, aren't they?

I have and I did recommend those. Apparently you've missed that, which is hard to do if you've actually read the posts. Let's give some quotes I've made shall we? Feel free to ctrl+f for these since you apparently missed them.

Of course it'd always be best to use native filesystems in linux like ext3 and reiserfs, but here's what you could do:

Of course I'd always recommend using native linux filesystems, but its not necessary. Captive-ntfs has been extremely stable for me.

Oh and btw, I would use the ReiserFS filesystem if you plan on working (copying/moving/deleting/etc) with lots of smaller files. ReiserFS excells in that. I'd recommend the XFS partition if you plan on working with lots of big files. Maybe even JFS if you're worried about cpu usage as its the best when it comes to that and its an all around top performer (I need to play with this one more, it beat or tied with ReiserFS and XFS in a TON of catagories, I'll pull out a link if you want to see ). All of these are faster filesystems than ext3. And if Novell's SLED 10 (I believe SLES 10 too) and Suse 10.1 try to install ReiserFS by default then that means its very mature by now (maybe not perfect, but still very mature).

Lastly, let me reiterate I always recommend linux users to rely on native linux filesystems whenever possible. Just informing him of all his options.

Like I said, I'm letting him know of all his options. Especially with something that's always worked well for me. I've reiterated two times before, but I want to make sure everybody knows,

I always recommend linux users to rely on native linux filesystems whenever possible.

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: coolred
well i reinstall FC5 again and it did boot this time, trying a reboot now. It also just dawned on me that backup by DVD is not a great option, with over 300GB of data, it would take like over 70 DVD's to back it all up.

I know its a pain in the ass, but I would still burn all your data to dvds. You may want to use DL dvds to dull the pain (if you have the money, or can find a good deal).

 

[n0cmonkey]

coolred: you should always back up any data you want to keep. Always.

Microsoft Windows driver files are copyrighted by Microsoft corporation and
therefore they were not supplied along with this project.

That's sad.

There isn't a better choice than ext3fs right now for Linux. It's supported by everything (BSDs included in ext2 compatibility mode), it's stable, and it isn't horribly slow.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: tw1164

Originally posted by: coolred
It also just dawned on me that backup by DVD is not a great option, with over 300GB of data, it would take like over 70 DVD's to back it all up.

I know its a pain in the ass, but I would still burn all your data to dvds. You may want to use DL dvds to dull the pain (if you have the money, or can find a good deal).

If you're going to spending so much money, it'd be much better to buy a new 300 GB HD for $100 USD or so (around the going rate). Assuming that you manually make all the DVD's correctly, you'll never get that time back, and wouldn't be able to reuse those DVD's (without spending even more time and money), whereas you'll surely be able to use the new HD in time, and that'd be the fastest option.

Edit: >300 GB gets more expensive. 320 GB is OK, and you can find some deals for 400 GB at present. You could also try trimming your files, compression, and partial backup to DVD.

Edit2: IMO. Windows is easier to understand and set up, esp. for a novice. With no special need for Linux, and an existing Windows license, I'd stick with Windows. If you're having trouble with Windows, the odds are worse for a successful Linux installation. IMO.

 

[Nothinman]

If you're going to spending so much money, it'd be much better to buy a new 300 GB HD for $100 USD or so (around the going rate). Assuming that you manually make all the DVD's correctly, you'll never get that time back, and wouldn't be able to reuse those DVD's (without spending even more time and money), whereas you'll surely be able to use the new HD in time, and that'd be the fastest option.

But there's also the fact that if your hard disk blows up tomorrow you'll have all of that stuff on DVD. Having a good backup is good for more than just one migration.

Edit2: IMO. Windows is easier to understand and set up, esp. for a novice. With no special need for Linux, and an existing Windows license, I'd stick with Windows. If you're having trouble with Windows, the odds are worse for a successful Linux installation. IMO.

That's not true, installing Linux is dead simple and there's a better chance that most/all of your hardware will work out of the box with a Linux installation. The complicated stuff comes after the installation and even that's not too bad if you're willing to keep an open mind and learn.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
That's not true, installing Linux is dead simple and there's a better chance that most/all of your hardware will work out of the box with a Linux installation. The complicated stuff comes after the installation and even that's not too bad if you're willing to keep an open mind and learn.

I've given my opinion, as an opinion, and I stand by it. You give yours as a fact, but I think it's just an opinion after all, and of course we can have differing opinions based on different experiences, wishes, etc., etc.

 

[Nothinman]

I've given my opinion, as an opinion, and I stand by it. You give yours as a fact, but I think it's just an opinion after all, and of course we can have differing opinions based on different experiences, wishes, etc., etc.

But have you tried an installation of FC5 or Ubuntu recently? It's almost completely automated, the only way it could fail is if you have a storage controller that's not supported and that's pretty rare. How easy it is to use after the installation is of course opinion, but the fact that the installation is simpler than Windows is just that, a fact.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
But have you tried an installation of FC5 or Ubuntu recently?

As a matter of fact, I have! As to arguing about this further, I have better things to do. Cheers, enjoy whichever OS's you choose.