Mount ext2 FS in MacOS X

**fddi1** · October 18th, 2002, 08:48 AM

What happened to me was my RH Linux box recently just died. So I need to move my data from it to somewhere else. Since the RH Linux was using ext2 FS, I was hoping to get a firewire enclose and put the hard drive in, then mounted the FS under OS X. So NFS or any other network transfer mechanisms are out of the question here.

**davidbrit2** · October 18th, 2002, 09:16 AM

Hmm, I guess your best bet would be to stuff the drive into the cheapest Linux system you can get your hands on, and just dump the data across the network. It's not a very pleasant solution, I know.

**strobe** · October 18th, 2002, 07:52 PM

You don't need to buy a whole new system silly, just boot off a Linux/PPC CD. Yeesh.

**strobe** · October 18th, 2002, 09:24 PM

By the way there is an ext2 for Mac OS X project here:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsx/

**davidbrit2** · October 19th, 2002, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by strobe
You don't need to buy a whole new system silly, just boot off a Linux/PPC CD. Yeesh.

Well, he said he had a Red Hat system, and last time I checked, Red Hat doesn't boot too well on PPCs, let alone Macs. Enough of the hostile posts already; it's not helping any.

If you've got a PPC Linux CD that you can boot in such a way that you've got read/write access to one of your data partitions, then go for it. Better yet, maybe you could stuff the ext2 drive in the Mac and install a fresh copy of Yellow Dog Linux on it, then boot from that and move your data. Of course, this is assuming that you have access to Yellow Dog CDs, are willing to overwrite the old Red Hat installation, and you've got the patience necessary to actually get yaboot installed and booting Yellow Dog properly. It's certainly not easier than puting the drive into a different x86 system, but it would be cheaper.

**fddi1** · October 19th, 2002, 06:48 PM

Heh... I just had this idea, but not sure if it would work. If I installed Virtual PC and put RH Linux on it, would it recognize the mount?

**davidbrit2** · October 19th, 2002, 07:52 PM

Hmm, you know that has potential... This is a bit of rambling, but it might work.

Install Virtual PC. Put Linux on a small disk image. Install the ext2 disk in your Mac. DON'T format it if the Finder asks. Use Disk Copy to "Make Image from Device," or whatever it's called, and store the entire disk as whatever image type is compatible with Virtual PC. It'll probably just be a read/write uncompressed image. You're going to need a lot of spare disk space to do that, but it would sure be worth a shot. Hopefully your ext2 partition isn't too high in double digit gigabytes.

I don't know if Virtual PC can mount a device directly, but if it can, then you can skip the disk image step and just try using the disk.

If anyone can comment on why this wouldn't work, now's your chance. :-)

**lethe** · October 20th, 2002, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by strobe
The Darwin kernel, xnu, is not a microkernel. Furthermore whether it is or isn't a microkernel has absolutely nothing to do with what filesystems it supports or how easy it would be to support a new filesystem.

MacOSX uses the Mach 3.0 kernel. this is a microkernel. in fact, this is _the_ microkernel. windows NT-2000-XP also uses a microkernel. the GNU system (AKA GNU/HURD) also uses a microkernel, the mach 3 microkernel, the same as Mac OS X.

the darwin implementation of Mach 3.0 is known as xnu.

by the way, strobe, having no native filesystems, and having dynamically loadable modules, while no definitive, does go a long way towards making a kernel a microkernel. every monolithic kernel has FS support hardwired in.

furthermore, whether or not it is a microkernel has _everything_ to do with how easy it is to add filesystem support. in fact, this was the whole principle behind the microkernel design. to make the kernel modular and extensible. it is much much easier and safer to add a filesystem module to a microkernel than to hardwire a new filesystem into a monolithic kernel. due to the obvious superiority of this architecture, even most monolithic kernels today have some support for dynamically loadable drivers, and therefore share some features with microkernels.

Originally posted by strobe
I don't see what that has to do with microkernels.

Umm... that is practically the definition of a microkernel.

Originally posted by strobe
Modules thus have nothing to do with microkernels.

Microkernel (from nightflight): An approach to operating system design emphasising small modules that implement the basic features of the system kernel and can be flexibly configured.

strobe: modules have quite a lot to do with microkernels. in fact they are the defining characteristic of a microkernel.

strobe, i am having my doubts as to whether you know what you re talking about, apropos kernel design. you should not be quite so aggressive in your posts, claiming someone does not know what [s]he is talkign about unless you are truly an expert, you know?

now as to whether the fact that OSX has a microkernel will help some end user, it is not likely. but remember, the easier it is for developers to add features, the more likely it is to happen, and that benefits our end user. and ease of extensibilty is the major force in the microkernel design.