Page 2 of 2

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:49 pm
by MadRat
I cannot fathom how anyone could say any open source FS is better than NTFS, when quite frankly they all have the same break points. ROS just needs a ROSFS to replace NTFS. It would be sweet music if MS found its own users suddenly using ROSFS on their brand new Vista installs.

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:44 pm
by Megari
MadRat wrote:I cannot fathom how anyone could say any open source FS is better than NTFS, when quite frankly they all have the same break points.
I wonder what you mean by this. Different file systems definitely have vastly different properties and "break points" in terms of data integrity (theoretical and actual), capacity limits (theoretical and actual, eg. NTFS), performance with big files, performance with small files and even reliance on hardware (HW caches + deferred writes + journaling + power failure = ouch), to name a few.

For example, during my time of being part of the freedb core team, I learned that the database could only be hosted on ReiserFS due to its strength in handling directories with huges amounts of small files. Ext3, for instance, which many of our mirror candidates had on their servers wouldn't do and we had to ask them to convert to ReiserFS (we didn't test ext3 with btrees, though - it might have made a difference). The "UNIX format" database archives which were released monthly couldn't be extracted onto a FAT file system at all, and NTFS coped just barely.
MadRat wrote:ROS just needs a ROSFS to replace NTFS. It would be sweet music if MS found its own users suddenly using ROSFS on their brand new Vista installs.
I would find it somewhat unwise to direct development efforts to yet another file system unless it would be clear that none of the existing FOSS implementations would be sufficient for an average ROS user, which is something I doubt would be the case. And besides, file system design and implementation is very difficult, with performance and integrity concerns, difficult locking scenarios etc. - that is, about as difficult as kernel development.

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:04 pm
by Z98
We don't need a new filesystem. There are plenty out there. The reason NTFS is aimed for is exactly what oiaohm said. And again, this is a fairly old argument, one of those that seem to recur every few rounds of signups(I actually reinitiated one round when I first joined). The developers are the ones that set the objectives. If you take issue with it, go to the IRC. Discussing it here won't even reach quite a few developers until the ones that do frequent the board actually read the stuff. And that's if they mention the subject of filesystems, considering they're mostly working on getting their current objective done.

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:18 am
by jasorn
For those who somehow, because of strange tendencies and fetishisms :P require access to their user level files from both a Microsoft proprietary OS and ReactOS. . Put them on FAT. It will allow you to access your file from Both OS's, and won't cripple either system.
I think ext2 would be better for this purpose, too :)

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:49 am
by Radhad
or even ext3. ;) I think ext4 is in developement...

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:36 pm
by oiaohm
Ok Ext4 is approcing release.

Looks like next Linux kernel 2.6.19.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4 Most likely will not need the extra size of Ext4. Ext4 is still smaller than NTFS on max size. Maybe. It all depends what block size the 1 EiB(1024 PiB) is quoted on.

It does get one more fragmentation resistant feature too.

Basic construction of Ext4 is still releated to Ext2. Ext4 does break backwards compad. Ext3 and Ext2 will not be alway open Ext4. Kinda breaks the model at long last.

MadRat every filesystem has different features and strenghts and weakness. Some filesystems are extreamlly strong to being broken.
Others are not.

For Size nothing currently beats ZFS.

Another new filesystem is only annother problem for all OS's

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:26 pm
by jasorn
Radhad wrote:or even ext3. ;) I think ext4 is in developement...
Yeah, I was thinking ext2 and not 3 because it seems like every time I have a crash and need to reboot in windows, I have to fsck if the partition is ext3. Don't have to with ext2. I guess that would go away if journaling was supported. The bottom line is I'm in agreement with those who see no reason for ntfs not to be on the back burner.

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:05 am
by Megari
Matthias wrote:It seems like you know just as "much" about file system drivers as you know about fixing broken websites.
Please calm down. Even if he's wrong about a thing or two, one shouldn't resort to personal attacks. It's much more constructive to just tell how things really are and leave it at that.