Query:Converting NTFS to Ext3/XFS without data loss

[s1nykuL]

I want to migrate my w2k3 server to Ubuntu server. No problem there, but I have 400Gb of data on a RAID 1 NTFS file system. Is there anyway I can convert the NTFS file system in place without any data loss. I have googled long but it appears not to be possible. I guess I could break the mirror and back up master to slave, format the master to the new file system, copy the data back from the slave to the master and then rebuild the mirror.

Furthermore, I understand that XFS would be the better file system for large files, and Ext3 would be best for small files. However I have a mix of jpg's, mp3's, DVD iso's and large mpg files. So which file system would be the best, most efficient?

[enteon]

yes, you can't convert closed source into open source that easy ;)

maybe it's possible to preserve the user access option for every file by mounting the ntfs partition with ntfs-3g and making a big tar archive with the necessary options. but i don't know if that would work after you extracted it onto the ext3 partition ^^

yes, i prefer ext3.
that's because xfs is not that better with big files but is a lot less stable. ext is believed to be the most mature filesystem for linux (if not at all).
the best thing: you can update ext3 to ext4 without problems and data loss as soon as it becomes stable. even better: ext4 rocks everything :D 3 times faster than ntfs in cases where it matters.

[s1nykuL]

yes, you can't convert closed source into open source that easy ;)

Thanks enteon, I guessed as much.


maybe it's possible to preserve the user access option for every file by mounting the ntfs partition with ntfs-3g and making a big tar archive with the necessary options. but i don't know if that would work after you extracted it onto the ext3 partition ^^

File permissions are not an issue. Just me and the missus use the box and we both have full access to all the data.


yes, i prefer ext3.
that's because xfs is not that better with big files but is a lot less stable. ext is believed to be the most mature filesystem for linux (if not at all).
the best thing: you can update ext3 to ext4 without problems and data loss as soon as it becomes stable. even better: ext4 rocks everything :D 3 times faster than ntfs in cases where it matters.

OK Ext3 it is :)

Thanks again

[kiikkuja]

File permissions are not an issue. Just me and the missus use the box and we both have full access to all the data.


The point enteon was trying to make is linux handles file usage and writing quite
differently when comparing to Windows. That's the first and most strange thing
I bumped into when starting to use Linux couple of years back.

When some file has root permissions only, other users have no writing access to the file in question.
So you have to make sure that your jpg and other files
have right permissions or you can't modify or move them.

I hope you understood what I was trying to say.:shrug::rofl::up:

[s1nykuL]

The point enteon was trying to make is linux handles file usage and writing quite
differently when comparing to Windows. That's the first and most strange thing
I bumped into when starting to use Linux couple of years back.

When some file has root permissions only, other users have no writing access to the file in question.
So you have to make sure that your jpg and other files
have right permissions or you can't modify or move them.

I hope you understood what I was trying to say.:shrug::rofl::up:

Yes thank you :)

I use Debian and Ubuntu on my lappy's. I am not a total newcomer to Linux but expert I am certainly not. Though I have managed to build my own kernels. A couple of chmod and chown commands whilst logged in as root or via sudo should sort all that kind of thing out. And, as we both (me and the missus) have the same full access to all files it should be straight forward. I must admit I have never used Linux as a file server before, So I will have to play for a while first. It must be transparent to the missus who runs XP and as far as she is concerned, behave no different from a file sharing perspective than W2K3 server does. I expect a samba share looks no different from a microsoft share when viewed from an XP box.

[enteon]

I expect a samba share looks no different from a microsoft share when viewed from an XP box.

theoretically :rolleyes:

good luck^^
it really should, but if it does not work as expected, you can most certanly fix it :up:

by the way: i experienced samba to be slower than nfs. i think there is a way to make windos use nfs... but don't ask me :D

[s1nykuL]

theoretically :rolleyes:

good luck^^
it really should, but if it does not work as expected, you can most certanly fix it :up:

by the way: i experienced samba to be slower than nfs. i think there is a way to make windos use nfs... but don't ask me :D

I will look into NFS thanks for your help, both of you :)