Solved What is the Best Choice for *Non-Microsoft* External File System?

One more thought...

Last time I worked with mounting drives was in FreeBSD 13.x.
At that time, drives did not automatically mount out-of-the-box.
I had to develop a configuration routine to get CD/DVD's, thumb drives,
and external drives to mount. Which included enabling one item that
was not the best idea to enable, due to the security threat.

And it worked. All the time. A little slow at times, but it worked.

But, to repeat, until I carried out that configuration, NOTHING would mount, at all, ever.

Now, with FreeBSD 14.2, upon reinstalling, I noticed that things were auto-mounting.

So, I thought, leave it alone. See what happens. Maybe everything is all automatic and
no further configuration needs to be done.

But, now I'm having problems I never had when I manually configured mounting.

Here's what I'm thinking...

Could it be that automatically mounting drives is something new in FreeBSD 14.x,
and so maybe the problems I'm having, have something to do with changes being
made to FreeBSD in order to support auto-mounting of drives?

.
.
 
1. Used the native FreeBSD support for ext2, with no additional configuration.
External ext2 drive mounted great, used and unmounted 3 times.
How did you mount and unmount the file system? My educated guess: You don't know how you did it, see below.

2. 4th time ext2 external drive mounted with errors. Something about "illegal operation."
We can't debug "something about". We might be able to debug exact error messages. Educated guess: The file system was not actually unmounted cleanly, and now can't be remounted without fsck.

3. Could not cleanly unmount.
Same question: What did it really say, what was the error message? Usually, being unable to unmount is due to a process having an object (file or directory) open on the file system. Commonly, this is a shell that is cd'ed into the file system, holding the current directory open.

4. External ext2 drive is now stuck in read only mode. Could see all files, but everything marked with a padlock.
The standard Unix (Linux and FreeBSD) interface doesn't have padlocks. It has text-based messages. What does the output of "mount" show? What message do you get when you try to explicitly perform a mount command without the ro option? My educated guess: You don't actually know, since you don't know how the mount happens.

Not having much luck using FreeBSD with file systems on external drives.

I'm starting to think maybe they all have issues.
Most other people are capable of using these file systems on external drives.

And that maybe it would be best to stick with FreeBSD's own file systems (UFS and/or ZFS)?
Absolutely the correct conclusion. Using non-native file systems is always dangerous, in particular when using them to write. On FreeBSD, I would use only UFS (the FreeBSD version), ZFS, and (ex-) FAT.

1. Formated external hard drive with UFS2 file system, from a FreeBSD computer, using bsdinstall.
I don't understand. You used bsdinstall to format an external drive to be a UFS file system? The purpose and function of bsdinstall is to install FreeBSD on a computer. Can you maybe tell us what partitioning (gpart...) and mkfs commands you used?

2. Installed pkg fusefs-ufs, fusefs_load="YES" already in /boot/loader.conf.
Why? To use UFS, no fusefs is needed; it is natively built into the kernel. There exists a fusefs-ufs port (and Rust crate), but it is a summer-of-code project, not production.

4. Connected external drive with UFS2 file system to FreeBSD computer, instantly recognized, ...

5. Umounted and remounted external drive 3 or 4 times, same behavior. Instant mounts, read/write works, fast unmount.
How did you mount it? Educated guess: You don't know.

6. On 5th attempt to remount, started throwing same type of errors as ext2/3/4, "invalid command," /etc.,
yet it showed the first level of folders. All other files previously on drive missing (or at least not showing.) command line shows all files missing (or at least not showing.). Drive does not say "read only mode" but it refuses attempted
write operations.[/quote]
Are the directories in the root of the file system there or not? You first say they are (you are using the words "first level of folders", but I'm interpreting it that way), then you say from the command line they are not. Which one is it?

And how did you determine that it is read only or not? What is the output of mount? What are the messages when "it refuses"?

7. And, this is a new one. Now, after rebooting, the Thunar file manager refuses to run. Click to run it, nothing happens.
Now we've done some kind of damage to the operating system.
I have no knowledge of what Thunar does. But it is not part of the operating system, it is a package you installed. I'm pretty certain that the OS itself is not damaged at all. Thunar might have some sort of persistent configuration, and a quick web search shows it to have lots of bugs, so I suspect it to be the problem here. Matter-of-fact, I suspect that the real root cause is that you don't know what you are doing, and just looking at one (buggy) GUI file manager.

Could it be some kind of a hardware problem? The USB port? The drive enclosure?
Seems very unlikely, given that (a) it sometimes works fine, (b) it works great from Linux, and (c) the symptoms are all compatible with file systems being recklessly unmounted, no fsck being performed, and thus being corrupted by the user.

...
Now, with FreeBSD 14.2, upon reinstalling, I noticed that things were auto-mounting.
...
You have not installed or configured an auto-mounter. Your external disks keeps auto-mounting, and you don't even know why. You probably have no idea how the drives are being mounted, with what parameters, what FS types, at what mount points. You are relying on a magic you don't even attempt to understand, even though you know it shouldn't be working.

May I suggest that if you are really interested in writing to external drives, that you sanitize your installation, remove extraneous components (in particular the GUI = DE and all file managers and auto-mounters), and try to reproduce your problems from the command line. And while doing so, record the actual error messages and actual status outputs, not just "something about" and "does not say" and "refuses".
 
Dave-D I know you asked for a non-microsoft solution but after trying for a long tine my conclusion is just exFat
It just works to exchange files between OS.
 
Since I get both windows and freebsd, all my external drives are ntfs format. With filesystems/ntfs, few problems happened until now. But I don't use gui file manger, usually mount/umount driver and cp/rm files via terminal emulator.
 
FWIW I just had a disappointing run with ZFS on an older USB harddrive, on a Mac. ZFS hanging after a while of writing, with processes hanging in system calls, and I wasn't able to clean it up, even by physically removing the USB plug. Had to reboot. Same hardware works fine (even if slow) with native filesystem.

FUSE ntfs was horribly slow for me.
 
FWIW I just had a disappointing run with ZFS on an older USB harddrive, on a Mac.
Years ago, I used to have some trouble with an external USB drive, also using ZFS, on my FreeBSD server. For the most part, it worked, system recognized disk and partition table just fine, ZFS mounted the device, and IO was reasonably fast, a few MByte/s. Occasionally, it would hang, and that required a reboot to cure. I switched to eSATA over a 6' long external cable, and that was better, but not much; still occasionally would hang. For the last several years, I've been using USB again, and it is now perfect. My current setup is using USB-3 (not USB-2!), with a high-quality cable (not the cheapest Amazon Basics), a small 2TB disk drive that's designed for USB (a Seagate backup drive, being used as intended). Before I had a no-name brand external enclosure with a 3-1/2" drive in it.

But: All the USB trouble manifests itself as IO errors (visible in dmesg), or USB hanging. Not in the symptoms the OP is reporting. I think their troubles are not caused by the USB aspect of their setup.
 
There's your answer. I believe the fusefs-ext2 driver can be used to access ext3/ext4 external mounts as well.
It can; I recently moved 20GB of data from a Linux based system over to FreeBSD using an ext4 FS as an intermediary (the production system was XFS). Files transferred 100% and the data passed integrity checking 100%.

It is, however, very slow.
 
It can; I recently moved 20GB of data from a Linux based system over to FreeBSD using an ext4 FS as an intermediary (the production system was XFS). Files transferred 100% and the data passed integrity checking 100%.

It is, however, very slow.

The kernel ext2fs is much faster than the fuse ext4fs.
 
How did you mount and unmount the file system? My educated guess: You don't know how you did it, see below.

No, I don't know how I did it.
I was using auto-mount. So, other than to plug in the device, and unmount before disconnecting,
I had no need to know how I did it.

It's "auto" mount. Automatic.
Because it was there, I assumed it was working correctly.
Apparently that is not the case.

What I found out...

1.) Apparently XFCE has included some very buggy auto-mount code with their desktop, which, as of 2021, did not work.
But it was released anyway.

See https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/how-to-disable-bsdisks-automounter.78612/

To release code in that condition is irresponsible. Especially when it has directly to do with data.

2.) My symptoms are pretty close to what is described in the above post. So apparently 3 years latter, there are still problems with XFCE and/or Thunar auto-mount. Possibly wide-spread, or possibly just on FreeBSD.

3.) I found the following instructions about how to enable auto-mounting on Thunar,


Following the instructions given, the link described ("click on the Configure link right below that") pops up with an error message, "Failed to display the volume mangement settings." So there is no way to configure Thunar auto-mounting on FreeBSD.

4.) I was able to mount and unmount formerly unmountable drives from the command line. However, once mounted, from the command line (R/W), Thunar (the file browser) on XFCE would see the drive, but it was read only. Perhaps Thunar is working independently of the file system? Why else would it say read only when it is, in fact, mounted read/write?


Conclusion:

1.) This situation is unacceptable. The only solution is to avoid it, as much as possible.

2.) I've had my share of "various" troubles with Desktop Environments in the past. Perhaps its time to ditch desktop environments and go with a window manager (Like OpenBox). Build my own desktop. This would put ME much more in control of what happens on my desktop.
.
.
 
To unmount them I use XFCE mount plug in, which also works just fine. I never used x11-fm/thunar for that.

Problem is, when you use XFCE, you're tied into their way of doing things.
It's not modular. Uninstall Thunar and you mess up the whole Desktop Environment.
I'm pretty sick of that whole situation.
It's all 6-of-1, or a half-dozen-of-another.
Working around someone else's bad ideas.
Same-O, Same-O.

Use a window manager, and you can build your own stack.
Don't like something? Take it out. Replace it.
Repeat if necessary.
Build and refine to match up with your own needs, over time.

I like that.

This fiasco just made up my mind.
.
 
Because it was there, I assumed it was working correctly.
Apparently that is not the case.
The mindset of the FreeBSD project is roughly this: There is a base operating system, which is called FreeBSD. You can download it. If you stick to the RELEASE versions (not STABLE, not CURRENT), you should have a very high expectation of it functioning correctly. If it doesn't, in particular in a way that endangers or damages stored data, you should file a bug report (a.k.a. PR), and there is a high likelihood that it will be looked at and addressed.

Then there are ports and packages (sort of the same thing), which are other (non-FreeBSD) software that is made available by volunteers. The FreeBSD project itself has neither the resources nor the intention of making sure ports/packages are reliable and of high quality. In a nutshell, once you install a port/package and use it, you're on your own. All GUI and DE usage on FreeBSD is packages.

To release code in that condition is irresponsible. Especially when it has directly to do with data.
Please propose an alternative. For example: Do not provide a port/package for XFCE. Personally, I think that alternative would be even worse. What is not an alternative is to demand that the FreeBSD project (the foundation, the few employees paid by fund-raising, and the volunteers) fix every bug in ports and packages.

Possibly wide-spread, or possibly just on FreeBSD.
As the vast majority of all open-source GUI/DE usage is on Linux, not FreeBSD, it is significantly more likely that bugs exist on FreeBSD. You make your bed, you sleep in it.

I was able to mount and unmount formerly unmountable drives from the command line.
Fully expected: From the CLI, things tend to work pretty well. Although foreign file systems are still an area that concerns me greatly, which is why I keep re-iterating that people should only use native file systems (UFS and ZFS) and really simple and well-known file systems (FAT) if they need durability of their data.

However, once mounted, from the command line (R/W), Thunar (the file browser) on XFCE would see the drive, but it was read only. Perhaps Thunar is working independently of the file system? Why else would it say read only when it is, in fact, mounted read/write?
You would have to take that up with the people who develop and maintain Thunar. Given that it is mostly Linux software, I would expect they would ignore reports of problems on FreeBSD. And given that it is mostly Linux software, it probably uses Linux-style hooks to deal with complex things like mounting.

I've had my share of "various" troubles with Desktop Environments in the past. Perhaps it's time to ditch desktop environments and go with ...
You do you. My personal solution is to only use DEs from commercial companies that have excellent support, and an expectation of high quality and reliability. Meaning in my current case MacOS, but I have also had good experience with (licensed and supported) Windows installations.
 
Problem is, when you use XFCE, you're tied into their way of doing things.
It's not modular. Uninstall Thunar and you mess up the whole Desktop Environment.
I'm pretty sick of that whole situation.
It's all 6-of-1, or a half-dozen-of-another.
Working around someone else's bad ideas.
Same-O, Same-O.

Use a window manager, and you can build your own stack.
Don't like something? Take it out. Replace it.
Repeat if necessary.
Build and refine to match up with your own needs, over time.

I like that.

This fiasco just made up my mind.
.
Not really. I use automount to mount my USB devices and the plugin to unmount. The plugin just issues a plain "umount", thunar (and the whole XFCE) is completely out out the way. The "umount" succeeds because automount changes the ownership at mount time.
 
Please propose an alternative. For example: Do not provide a port/package for XFCE. Personally, I think that alternative would be even worse. What is not an alternative is to demand that the FreeBSD project (the foundation, the few employees paid by fund-raising, and the volunteers) fix every bug in ports and packages.

I wasn't blaming FreeBSD. It's really a wonder that things work as well as they do.

I love FreeBSD.

As the vast majority of all open-source GUI/DE usage is on Linux, not FreeBSD, it is significantly more likely that bugs exist on FreeBSD. You make your bed, you sleep in it.

Exactly why I've been seriously thinking about moving my desktops back to Devuan Linux. At least for the next few years. Then we'll take another look at FreeBSD for desktop/laptop use.

My FreeBSD servers are all working great. I have no intention of moving those off FreeBSD.
.
.
 
Back
Top