Re: Linux for Network Attached Storage?
From: Randy McLaughlin (randy_at_nospam.com)
Date: 06/16/05
- Next message: Kawosa: "Re: FC4 release?"
- Previous message: Chris de Bruin: "Linux computer won't start with monitorcable connected - help!"
- In reply to: Andy Turner: "Re: Linux for Network Attached Storage?"
- Next in thread: Andy Turner: "Re: Linux for Network Attached Storage?"
- Reply: Andy Turner: "Re: Linux for Network Attached Storage?"
- Reply: Andy Turner: "Re: Linux for Network Attached Storage?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:27:08 -0500
"Andy Turner" <andyt@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tpn2b1la29s28dq05j3p6e0unp8b0itcd7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:46:25 -0500, "Randy McLaughlin"
> <randy@nospam.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>Your post reminds me of the joke about someone that is lost and didn't
>>like
>>the directions he was given. He then goes off on the person helping him,
>>in
>>response the person helping him pointed out who is the one lost.
>
> Except as I pointed out, you didn't make any attempt to help with my
> requirements, you just had a pop at me and then at Microsoft. Other
> people helped though, which was good.
I gave explicit directions: Linux will not do what you asked for, you have
to either accept what Linux will do or go another route.
>>Micro$loth has been at war with Linux and the entire open source
>>community.
>>This war makes it difficult to support NTFS, it is not the Linux
>>communities
>>fault.
>
> As far as the communities go, it only seems to be a war at the Linux
> end. If I were to post some question in an MS newsgroup that mentioned
> Linux, I *know* I wouldn't get drivel such as "Your biggest problem is
> it requires you to stop and learn what a computer is", or equivalents
> of *achingly* childish name calling such as "Micro$loth". Are you
> aware that it just comes across as angry and bitter?
No the war has been the Micro$loth corporation against Linux, they have an
entire department for the attack. Many city governments have been going the
route of basically banning Windoze from being purchased and going with Linux
which is more stable, virus proof, and more cost effective. This possible
loss of revenue of governments banning their OS's created an environment
that Micro$loth sees as unacceptable and are fighting against.
>>A little googling will find that a great deal of effort has been put into
>>reverse engineering NTFS with limited results. NTFS is more of a database
>>than a file system with a great deal of cross linking. When a link gets
>>broken rather than have an automatic repair mechanism it can corrupt the
>>entire disk.
>
> Linux will have no chance of supporting Longhorn's WinFS then.
>
>
>>If your requirement is a file server that sits on an NTFS disk your best
>>choice is to buy a new P4 server and load a Micro$loth OS, preferably
>>Windows 2003 server.
>
> That's *totally* overkill for my needs and is nowhere near my "best
> choice". Your 'advice' is dreadful.
>
>
>>Please remember I am not the one that's lost, if you want help and good
>>advise we are happy to help. It requires that you stop and learn what a
>>computer is. It may sound like you are being talked down to, in truth it
>>is.
>
> LOL! Sorry fella, but you've already lost all credibility with your
> "Micro$loth" drivel and your rather dreadful 'advice'. You'll forgive
> me if I don't quite see you speaking down to me won't you....
>
>
>
>> You have pre-conceived beliefs that are incorrect, to get over your
>> preconceptions you must stop and realize that.
>
> What are the preconceptions? Please don't *assume* some, please tell
> me what preconceptions I've shown here, that are incorrect. I look
> forward to seeing your list!
You come to this group and basically demand to get help setting up a server
while obviously never once having touched the OS you want help from. You
must first learn to walk before you run.
You come to this group with a hardware list and a goal that can not be
achieved.
You come to this group and don't understand that a computer is a piece of
hardware and software combined to achieve a goal. You have some hardware
and a goal but no idea that the software you are asking about is contra
indicated.
>>As I said a P200 with 64K
>
> LOL! If I "stop and learn what a computer is", will I be as smart as
> this?
>
>
>> of RAM has plenty of horsepower to provide a
>> decent server, it can do a lot more than just be a file server.
>
> Yeah, I didn't actually ask whether the machine was capable of it (I
> know it is, I ran NT3.5 servers on less), just whether there's a nice
> NAS install available. I figured it's the sort of thing that Linux
> excels at, so I thought there might be something available.
>
>
>> It can not be a decent fileserver with NTFS disks.
>
> Well, unless I stick NT on it of course. Jeez, your 'advice' was bad
> to the very end!
>
>
>
> andyt
You obviously are unaware that Micro$loth has changed the NTFS structure
over the years and if you load an old version of NT and stick in disks with
newer versions of NTFS partitions you can expect to destroy the data.
To have a server that you can plug in current disks with NTFS partitions you
need more horsepower than a P200 with 64MB of RAM. If you want to please
Micro$loth then remember they have a good (but expensive) server OS that
will handle current NTFS partitions.
The only Windoze file system that Linux can reliably support is FAT (and
it's variants).
If you want help from this group it is required that you discard the notion
of using NTFS partitions, if your requirement is a server that uses NTFS
partitions you must go somewhere else.
If you want help here start by getting Linux and playing with it, once you
learn what to ask come back and ask we will be happy to help.
Randy
- Next message: Kawosa: "Re: FC4 release?"
- Previous message: Chris de Bruin: "Linux computer won't start with monitorcable connected - help!"
- In reply to: Andy Turner: "Re: Linux for Network Attached Storage?"
- Next in thread: Andy Turner: "Re: Linux for Network Attached Storage?"
- Reply: Andy Turner: "Re: Linux for Network Attached Storage?"
- Reply: Andy Turner: "Re: Linux for Network Attached Storage?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
