FreeBSD and Linux shared installation

krad kraduk at
Tue Jan 21 12:42:27 UTC 2014

ifs its only for small stuff would fat32 not be good enough. Linux and BSD
are ok with with, even if it is a bit ugly

On 21 January 2014 11:02, Polytropon <freebsd at> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:31:52 +0000, krad wrote:
> > if you want data exchange, you might be better going for nfs or cifs
> rather
> > than trying to keep it on disk. All of the issues with fs support then go
> > away, and you can keep each os install atomic
> If I would need this for larger amounts of data, NFS would definitely
> be my choice. I already _know_ that it works because I have tried it
> in the past. But the requirement is "network-less", and only for
> small amounts of data, just in case I want to access something from
> all installed operating systems, or want something created on one
> OS make accessible on the other OS. It's not even about a shared
> home directory. Also it's not about simultaneous access, because
> only one OS will run at a time.
> The primary intention is that it should be r/w from all systems
> with the simplest means possible. I'm not sure in how far Linux
> supports UFS (either as a partition inside a slice, or as a GPT
> partition, or as a "slice on its own"), that's why I thought the
> best choice would be the lowest Linux file system (ext2), because
> FreeBSD can read and write this with OS tools (fuse not required).
> So the "means of sharing or transfer" can be kept on the same
> disk (installed in the laptop) and does not require something
> specific. It's really not meant for big amounts of data, it's
> a "just in case" concept.
> --
> Polytropon
> Magdeburg, Germany
> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list