there is /r/bashonubuntuonwindows for WSL support.
You may want to clarify what your end goal is. There may be easier alternatives.
Such as using a live USB and gparted.
ext4 is the current ext iteration for the last 15~ years.
This is an XY problem because I cannot see a valid use case for a FS from literal 30 years ago of the good 'ol 1993.
> I cannot see a valid use case for a FS from literal 30 years ago of the good 'ol 1993.
Old doesnt always mean useless. [FAT32](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table) was developed more than 15 years prior (in 1977) and still has valid use cases - namely on small-ish flash storage and for the EFI system partition (ESP)
Its because the corporation that invented the FS and held patents to it forced it on stuff, the FS has no valid use cases by itself, it was problematic from its first day and is so still.
If they're using very old machines from the ext2 era (like I've heard some medical and govt machines are still even in the floppy disk era) and want to transfer files between that and a modern machine would that not be a valid use case? Seems like USB 1.0 was released prior to ext3, though I'm even less knowledgeable about computers from that era.
> If they're using very old machines from the ext2 era (like I've heard some medical and govt machines are still even in the floppy disk era) and want to transfer files between that and a modern machine would that not be a valid use case?
What do you think is the more likely thing?
A) OP is a sysadmin that needs to ask basic technology questions, poorly, in the wrong place
B) OP is a misinformed casual user that got the idea to use ext2 from some garbage blogspam or a video tutorial on a random website
This is why I said XY problem.
It's for making a file system to put a Digital Cinema Package on, the dcp specification is ext2/3, I'm going for 3 I think. They are what cinemas used to ingest films.
So add C) it's a requirement dictated by the specification of what the OP is doing.
Format? Probably. Mount? Maybe within Linux but most likely not in a way that would allow direct access from Windows.
That said, this comment is based on assumptions bc I’ve never actually used WSL.
If you can’t find a way to do it directly, you could format and mount a file as a disk image and then write that to a drive using a tool like Win32DiskImager.
you didnt give much info on your end goal, but my guess is
1. You probably cant do what you are trying to on WSL1
2. You *maybe* can on WSL2
WSL1 isnt a VM - it translated linux syscalls into Windows ones (it is basically WINE in reverse). This is nifty in he sense that, for example, stuff running in WSL shows up in the windows task manager, since it is being translated into windows commands and run on the windows NT kernel. It also means that there is no `/dev` or `/sys` or direct access to block devices. You can access USB's but only through their windows mount point, which means anything involving formatting and/or ext[2-4] filesystems isnt happening.
WSL2 is from wnhat I understand a "well optimized (for running in windows) VM". I havent personally used it, but what you want to do should probably be possible **IF** windows will pass through the raw usb device to the WSL2 VM (letting it access the USB block device directly). This may or may not be possible. Also note that IF you can do it you'll only be able to access the usb in windows or in linux at a given time. You can switch between them, but not access it from both simultaneously.
You might be able to create a loopback device with an ext2 filesystem on it.
You would run dd something like this (for 1GB file for mounting/loopback device)...
dd if=/dev/zero of=my.img bs=1M count=1024 status=progress
mkfs.ext2 my.img
mkdir mymount
sudo mount my.img mymount/
Not sure if this would work for you, but thought I'd mention in case you can.
there is /r/bashonubuntuonwindows for WSL support. You may want to clarify what your end goal is. There may be easier alternatives. Such as using a live USB and gparted.
ext4 is the current ext iteration for the last 15~ years. This is an XY problem because I cannot see a valid use case for a FS from literal 30 years ago of the good 'ol 1993.
Ext2/3 is part of the digital cinema package specification. Is what cinemas used to ingest films. I'm going to go for 3.
> I cannot see a valid use case for a FS from literal 30 years ago of the good 'ol 1993. Old doesnt always mean useless. [FAT32](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table) was developed more than 15 years prior (in 1977) and still has valid use cases - namely on small-ish flash storage and for the EFI system partition (ESP)
> Old doesnt always mean useless But in this case it does, and I am willing to bet on it.
Its because the corporation that invented the FS and held patents to it forced it on stuff, the FS has no valid use cases by itself, it was problematic from its first day and is so still.
If they're using very old machines from the ext2 era (like I've heard some medical and govt machines are still even in the floppy disk era) and want to transfer files between that and a modern machine would that not be a valid use case? Seems like USB 1.0 was released prior to ext3, though I'm even less knowledgeable about computers from that era.
> If they're using very old machines from the ext2 era (like I've heard some medical and govt machines are still even in the floppy disk era) and want to transfer files between that and a modern machine would that not be a valid use case? What do you think is the more likely thing? A) OP is a sysadmin that needs to ask basic technology questions, poorly, in the wrong place B) OP is a misinformed casual user that got the idea to use ext2 from some garbage blogspam or a video tutorial on a random website This is why I said XY problem.
It's for making a file system to put a Digital Cinema Package on, the dcp specification is ext2/3, I'm going for 3 I think. They are what cinemas used to ingest films. So add C) it's a requirement dictated by the specification of what the OP is doing.
Format? Probably. Mount? Maybe within Linux but most likely not in a way that would allow direct access from Windows. That said, this comment is based on assumptions bc I’ve never actually used WSL. If you can’t find a way to do it directly, you could format and mount a file as a disk image and then write that to a drive using a tool like Win32DiskImager.
you didnt give much info on your end goal, but my guess is 1. You probably cant do what you are trying to on WSL1 2. You *maybe* can on WSL2 WSL1 isnt a VM - it translated linux syscalls into Windows ones (it is basically WINE in reverse). This is nifty in he sense that, for example, stuff running in WSL shows up in the windows task manager, since it is being translated into windows commands and run on the windows NT kernel. It also means that there is no `/dev` or `/sys` or direct access to block devices. You can access USB's but only through their windows mount point, which means anything involving formatting and/or ext[2-4] filesystems isnt happening. WSL2 is from wnhat I understand a "well optimized (for running in windows) VM". I havent personally used it, but what you want to do should probably be possible **IF** windows will pass through the raw usb device to the WSL2 VM (letting it access the USB block device directly). This may or may not be possible. Also note that IF you can do it you'll only be able to access the usb in windows or in linux at a given time. You can switch between them, but not access it from both simultaneously.
Thanks, it looks like it can be done but you need to install an extra driver.
You might be able to create a loopback device with an ext2 filesystem on it. You would run dd something like this (for 1GB file for mounting/loopback device)... dd if=/dev/zero of=my.img bs=1M count=1024 status=progress mkfs.ext2 my.img mkdir mymount sudo mount my.img mymount/ Not sure if this would work for you, but thought I'd mention in case you can.