Hey, there!
I have been loyal to the ext2ifs driver from fs-driver.org, but I noticed your site today, and was utterly surprised to see that the driver _seems_ to be in such a mature state. UTF-8 support was just recently (a week ago) added to the EXT2IFS driver, and now I just wondered what the differences between the two are?
You both seem to support a whole lot of features, but EXT2IFS has been around for a long time, and seems stable so far. Is there any pros/cons to using one version instead of the other?
Regards,
fatso
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
EXT2IFS is a freeware developed by Stephan Schreiber. Ext2Fsd is scratched by me from Bo Brantén's romfs (http://www.acc.umu.se/~bosse/), following GNU GPL.
Both of them don't support ext3 journal and both support ext2 reading/writing etc. I ever tried EXT2IFS. It's really good and stable. But on my machines, I'd rather use Ext2Fsd to replace windows FAT just because I want to torture and improve Ext2Fsd as much as possible :-)
If you want to access ext2 on Vista systems and dislike enabling the debug mode, I recommend you to use EXT2IFS. It's signed to support Vista. As we know, Vista system need all kernel drivers signed or it will refuse to load them. The code signing is a costing service with a fare of 200-500US$ a year.
There's also a commercial version from paragon. I'm not sure of it's developemnt status. When I have free time I'll try to load these 3 drivers and make a comparison test, just for fun ;)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thanks for the answer. Is there anything stopping an open-source project from getting signed? I understand that the individual developers do not want to fork out for the signing, but through PayPal donations it should be possible ...(?) Just a thought.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I was also a long time user of EXT2IFS before, but recently I noticed repeated blue screens (stop errors) under Windows XP SP2 when using Truecrypt. I found out that they were related to ext2ifs (the one by Stefan Schreiber).
That's why I switched to ext2fsd again (had used it before but found it less comfortable to use), so far no problems, and in contrast to earlier times I can also write to ext2/ext3 partitions. Great work.
sempronius
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
EXT2IFS only supports an inode size of 128 bytes, where the fedora core 10 installation created an 256 byte inode size ext3 volume here. ext2fsd works without problems, ext2ifs really only can work with 128 bytes inode size.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hey, there!
I have been loyal to the ext2ifs driver from fs-driver.org, but I noticed your site today, and was utterly surprised to see that the driver _seems_ to be in such a mature state. UTF-8 support was just recently (a week ago) added to the EXT2IFS driver, and now I just wondered what the differences between the two are?
You both seem to support a whole lot of features, but EXT2IFS has been around for a long time, and seems stable so far. Is there any pros/cons to using one version instead of the other?
Regards,
fatso
EXT2IFS is a freeware developed by Stephan Schreiber. Ext2Fsd is scratched by me from Bo Brantén's romfs (http://www.acc.umu.se/~bosse/), following GNU GPL.
Both of them don't support ext3 journal and both support ext2 reading/writing etc. I ever tried EXT2IFS. It's really good and stable. But on my machines, I'd rather use Ext2Fsd to replace windows FAT just because I want to torture and improve Ext2Fsd as much as possible :-)
If you want to access ext2 on Vista systems and dislike enabling the debug mode, I recommend you to use EXT2IFS. It's signed to support Vista. As we know, Vista system need all kernel drivers signed or it will refuse to load them. The code signing is a costing service with a fare of 200-500US$ a year.
There's also a commercial version from paragon. I'm not sure of it's developemnt status. When I have free time I'll try to load these 3 drivers and make a comparison test, just for fun ;)
Thanks for the answer. Is there anything stopping an open-source project from getting signed? I understand that the individual developers do not want to fork out for the signing, but through PayPal donations it should be possible ...(?) Just a thought.
I was also a long time user of EXT2IFS before, but recently I noticed repeated blue screens (stop errors) under Windows XP SP2 when using Truecrypt. I found out that they were related to ext2ifs (the one by Stefan Schreiber).
That's why I switched to ext2fsd again (had used it before but found it less comfortable to use), so far no problems, and in contrast to earlier times I can also write to ext2/ext3 partitions. Great work.
sempronius
EXT2IFS only supports an inode size of 128 bytes, where the fedora core 10 installation created an 256 byte inode size ext3 volume here. ext2fsd works without problems, ext2ifs really only can work with 128 bytes inode size.