Can i keep using NTFS file system?

[Michael_]

I have 3 internal M.2 SSDs (4TB each) and 2 internal HDDs (22TB each).
1 of the SSDs is used for the Operating System and is using the ext4 file system.

The other drives are now to be formatted and used for storing all kinds of things and the HDDs are for archiving purposes.

On my old system i had a similar setup just not that much storage space per drive.
I formatted all those drives using NTFS filesystem for windows compatibility.
I had a dual boot with Linux and Windows on that Machine.

Now on the new machine i do not have a dual boot anymore. The only OS is MX Linux at this point.
But i tend to still use NTFS in order to keep Windows compatibility in case i want to / have to go back to a dual boot with windows in the future.

Before i format my drives now: Anything wrong with that?

[CharlesV]

You may encounter a few 'minor' issues if you keep the NTFS formatting, but I dont believe it will be too bad.

I personally found that my ntfs removable drives were quite a bit slower than my ext4 drives, so I ended up formatting all of mine to ext4.

And one of the nice things is that if you need to get to the drives for anything from a windows machine... you can always use sharing on the MX box, and then reach into the shares from windows. (ie no ntfs required.)

[DukeComposed]

You may encounter a few 'minor' issues if you keep the NTFS formatting, but I dont believe it will be too bad.

I personally found that my ntfs removable drives were quite a bit slower than my ext4 drives, so I ended up formatting all of mine to ext4.

Linux is designed to work with POSIX-compatible file systems. NTFS is not a POSIX-compatible file system.

So in the last decade or so, Linux has added read-write support for NTFS that more or less works and finally makes NTFS partitions more or less usable. That doesn't make it a great file system for Linux users and if I were to set up a purely Linux-based system, I'd ask myself why I'd choose to have it rely on a second-rate file system.

[CharlesV]

You may encounter a few 'minor' issues if you keep the NTFS formatting, but I dont believe it will be too bad.

I personally found that my ntfs removable drives were quite a bit slower than my ext4 drives, so I ended up formatting all of mine to ext4.

Linux is designed to work with POSIX-compatible file systems. NTFS is not a POSIX-compatible file system.

So in the last decade or so, Linux has added read-write support for NTFS that more or less works and finally makes NTFS partitions more or less usable. That doesn't make it a great file system for Linux users and if I were to set up a purely Linux-based system, I'd ask myself why I'd choose to have it rely on a second-rate file system.

I agree. But the OP wanted to understand about leaving in NTFS for potentially working with Windows use.... so ... how to server both worlds? A

[DukeComposed]

I agree. But the OP wanted to understand about leaving in NTFS for potentially working with Windows use.... so ... how to server both worlds? A

It depends what "working with Windows" means. When I share files back and forth between Windows, Linux, and UNIX, it's with rsync or scp or SyncThing and file systems don't come into it. If one were to say "I want to take the hard drive out of Linux machine A and put it into Windows machine B and use it as is", I'd suggest not making that a common, or dependent, behavior. I'd suggest trying it once, too, before making it a core part of any workflow or recovery plan.

Plan for your most likely use cases. If you expect that in the future a new Windows install will hypothetically rescue all your Linux data for you, you may be failing to appreciate why you're installing Linux in the first place. You won't rescue your Linux data with Windows. You're going to rescue your old Linux data with a new Linux install.

And the landscape for file systems on Windows is in a much better position today than it's ever been. Twenty years ago there was just that one ext2 driver from fs-driver.org. Nowadays with WSL2 Windows itself has ext4 support and there's even projects on GitHub providing experimental drivers for OpenZFS and btrfs. There are peer-to-peer options and even cloud synchronizing offerings that can help here, too.

If transferring Linux files to a hypothetical Windows system at the partition level weren't silly enough on the face of it, deliberately planning a Linux setup now oriented around this hypothetical future Windows system surely is. Maybe you'll develop an allergy to blueberries in the future too, but it's awfully restrictive to choose to only eat blueberry-free meals today just in case.

[CharlesV]

Very true. Sine I dont dual boot windows, and all my windows live in a VM, it is very easy for me to say that "sharing a drive" can fulfill everything. But the reality is that some things from windows need ntfs. so... :-/

[JmaCWQ]

Lol, keeping it simple without weird hypotheticals , occasionally there can be issues though I've never experienced anything but slower speeds when using NTFS formatted drives with a Linux OS.
As I personally use MX for everything and only use Windows rarely in a virtual machine, I keep the majority of my junk stored on ext4 formatted drives.
Though I always keep one formatted as NTFS simply to be able to use it quickly and easily when dealing with other people's Windows machines

[operadude]

Of course you "can...keep using an NTFS file system" !

BUT, thinking about this in terms of my Backup Strategy, and what's best for long-term storage, and what's best for speed, I, too, wondered.

So, I created this topic:

https://forum.mxlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=83763


Well, it was quite a ride, and quite an education!

Just a shout-out to @DukeComposed and @thomasl for their input on the various issues regarding EXT4 Vs. NTFS.

Long story short: I converted my main backup drives to EXT4 (I also am Linux-Only, except for one drive with Win7 for Doom-- no Internet connection, not even showing in GRUB; actually, haven't used it in years; anyway...).

I do have a few small-ish (320 - 500 GB) drives that have some stuff on them, but those drives, and what lives on them, are, for me, expendable.

Regarding what you do, I think, depends on the probability of this becoming True:

Windows compatibility in case i want to / have to go back to a dual boot with windows in the future.

Would love to hear what you decide in the end

[Michael_]

Thanks for the replies and also @operadude for the link to the other topic.
I went with NTFS for now since i'm just storing video, audio, archive etc. file and it's already been working great for the last couple of years.
Just so that i could effortlessly access the drives with windows if i should ever have to.
Maybe i will go fully EXT4 in a couple years though. We will see...

[operadude]

@Michael I waited 5 years before going The Full Monty

Actually, it only happened because my main backup drive was a Seagate 4TB Desktop "Expansion" Drive, which was a USB-attached drive, but the USB port on the drive itself (the card attached to the drive's SATA connection) became wonky and eventually "died".

So...in anticipation of removing the drive from the enclosure and turning it into a pure internal drive, I started to wonder about the file system.

I became convinced by DukeComposed, and others, because of my use of SSH (into other machines, GitHub, etc), and how NTFS deals (or DOES NOT DEAL) with SSH EDIT/ADDENDUM: By "SSH", I mean SSH keys.

Anyway, long story short, I consider that "failing" drive a blessing-in-disguise for my edification, a la, the thread I mentioned previously.

BTW, that drive is no longer failing...it was just the USB port/connection on the card attached to the drive. Once removed, and reformatted to EXT4, it has been smooth sailing, especially with LuckyBackup, which sometimes gets screwed-up with NTFS filenames that may contain certain characters, notably, colons and asterisks.

Anyway, I wax prolific, and really am not trying to convince you one way or the other.

Keep us posted