[Untertaker555]

Thank you for this.
I read it, and these are some informations I found there:

So in some cases, the person in this thread lost their data, for no reason at all.
But as far as I understand, that is not supposed to happen, and it most likely was a failing NTFS support (considering this thread was 2016, it was quite new back then, if I am not wrong?).

Maybe such a failing NTFS support as described in this thread are already fixed, because it's nearly 10 years ago.

Other things that I learned in this thread are, that EXT4 would be in theory best, but my situation is a bit different from the preson in this thread, because they want to stop using Windows entirely, and they don't care about being compatible with Windows anymore, while I really want my disk to be either NTFS or FAT..

Also in this thread was a post that indicated that journaling seems to work on Linux too, as it works on Windows.
But about that I'm not entirely sure.. I really can't find anything about this anywhere, telling whether indexing of NTFS works on Linux as reliable as it works on Windows..


I learned some things from reading it, but I still have no real answer if to chose NTFS or FAT32, because the person in the thread seems to just give up and switch to EXT4, which I sadly can't do..
For me it's really just either NTFS or FAT32..
My hope is that NTFS support is now more stable.

The best thing that could happen is someone coming into this thread here, telling me "I'm using NTFS drives on Linux Mint for 5 years without problem and journaling works just as it does on Windows"

 

[Untertaker555]

@spunk.funk Thanks for the detailed answer.
This answer was very helpful in the context of creating the Live USB.

But what about the general use of let's say an external 1TB HDD?
If i want to use it sometimes on an Windows computer, and sometimes on a Linux computer, what file system would be better in that case?
Usually I would instantly go with NTFS, because of the Windows computer.
But I am a bit worried, that Linux (Mint) will not have a reliable NTFS support and will create problems with the drive.

I could of course make this hypothetical 1TB HDD a exFAT or FAT32 file system, but I really like the benefits of NTFS.
So, how reliable is NTFS on Linux in it's current state?

How are the proportions between having the benefits of NTFS - and having the risks of Linux's support of NTFS?

Are specifically FAT32 and exFAT more reliable on Linux, or are they just rather just "tolerated" by Linux?

 

[Untertaker555]

And what about any other drive?
For example if I get myself an external HDD just for media and office documents.
I want it either to be FAT or NTFS, because I want to be able to use it on Windows, too.
Usually I would go for NTFS, because I prefer the benefits of it, especially the journaling.

Will NTFS journaling and all these benefits work for Linux reliable?
And is Linux's current support for NTFS reliable, or is FAT the better option?

 

[Untertaker555]

But none of these seem to be compatible with Windows.
So what about any other drive, that is not for the purpose of creating a Live USB?
For example if I get myself an external HDD for storing media and office documents.
It has to be either FAT or NTFS, because I want to be able to use it on Windows, too.
Usually I would use NTFS, because I prefer the benefits of it, especially the journaling.

When using NTFS, will journaling and all these benefits work for Linux reliable?
And is the current support for NTFS from Linux reliable, or is FAT the better option?

 

[Untertaker555]

NTFS would be perfect for me.
I always use NTFS.

The only thing stopping me right now is, that I don't know if Linux has a reliable support of NTFS drives.

FAT seems to have a longer history of being supported on Linux, but does that mean that it's working more reliable on Linux than NTFS is?
Both are not native to Linux, but which support/reverse engineering of these both is better or worse?


I am not talking about the benefits of FAT32 or NTFS.
That's why I asked the question "Which of the 2 can Linux Mint handle better".
I didn't ask which is subjectively better, instead I try to find out which of these both is more reliable on Linux.

I know very well about the benefits of either.
To me it is always NTFS, because I use no other systems than Windows and Linux, and the journaling is a very good feature to me.
But if someone will tell me "FAT32/exFAT is much more reliable on Linux, because NTFS support is full of errors", then I would tolerate using a FAT file system.
So as I said, I try to find out which of these 2 "Windows file systems" is the better for daily use on Linux, if I can only chose between these both.

How reliable is NTFS on Linux in it's current state?

Is FAT32 more reliable on Linux than NTFS?

Is the journaling on NTFS drives working on Linux?

 

[Untertaker555]

It sems like the conclusion is, that journaling is really not working for NTFS on Linux.
But it also seems that neither of these FAT32, exFAT or NTFS seem to be really safe and perfectly supported.
They rather seem to be just "tolerated" by Linux.

So if there is no strong idication that FAT32 is much better supported than NTFS on Linux, I rather go either with NTFS and keep backups.

I'm still open to opinions and if someone has some experiences, I am very interested to listen to them.
Best case would be someone telling me "I'm using NTFS on Linux for 5 years and never had a problem" or someone telling "Don't use NTFS on Linux, it's very unstable and broken".
So if someone is out there using NTFS drives on Linux, please share your experiences, I really am curious!