Is ROS going towards OSS file system rather than NTFS?

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

MadRat
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:29 am
Contact:

Is ROS going towards OSS file system rather than NTFS?

Post by MadRat » Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:56 am

If the FAT file system is stuck to then we've got a real barrier to serious partition size. FAT32 is pretty much a bloated FAT, only it allows us to put tons of files into a partition well enough that file creep eventually sets in and files eventually overlap each other and corrupt the whole MFT. It would be nice to see EXT2 replace NTFS as the defacto standard for ROS. Plenty of commercial packages already allow NTFS to EXT2 or FAT32 to EXT2 conversions. Then again there is probably something even better out there. Its just that EXT2 has become such a familiar sight in the non-MS world.
*************************************
Go Huskers!

BrandonTurner
Developer
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:42 am

Re: Is ROS going towards OSS file system rather than NTFS?

Post by BrandonTurner » Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:38 am

MadRat wrote:If the FAT file system is stuck to then we've got a real barrier to serious partition size. FAT32 is pretty much a bloated FAT, only it allows us to put tons of files into a partition well enough that file creep eventually sets in and files eventually overlap each other and corrupt the whole MFT. It would be nice to see EXT2 replace NTFS as the defacto standard for ROS. Plenty of commercial packages already allow NTFS to EXT2 or FAT32 to EXT2 conversions. Then again there is probably something even better out there. Its just that EXT2 has become such a familiar sight in the non-MS world.
this is looking way down the road but windows networking with nt based systems will not work well. ROS would need to bundle its own form of a samaba server pretty much.

AcetoliNe
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:53 pm
Location: a thousand miles from Hinterland
Contact:

Post by AcetoliNe » Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:39 am

NTFS is a much better file system than FAT or ext2. If you ask me, I'd say NTFS competes with even ext3.
NTFS is a journaling file system, which is a very big plus when it comes to storing files. Also, it has enhanced features like hardlinks, mount points, encryption, disk quota, etc... that make it very ideal for compatibility with other file systems (being able to convert from ext2 to NTFS, for example) and for multi-user oses.

There is no doubt in my mind that NTFS has to be implemented in ros. Not doing so would be a very wrong move.
caveman LIKES chocolate.
we shall reinvent the wheel until it turns properly.

Elledan
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Elledan » Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:51 am

As far as I'm concerned, NTFS should only be supported for compatibility purposes, i.e., to read and write data on existing NTFS partitions.

NTFS isn't such a great FS. Ext3, XFS, JFS and ReiserFS all give it a run for its money.

Key points:

- NTFS isn't the best FS out there (file fragmentation, stability, speed, etc.).
- NTFS is a proprietary MSFT FS, so 100% compability can never be guaranteed.

Using a third-party's (MSFT's) proprietary FS for anything but compatibility purposes while there are plenty of non-proprietary FSs would be a major mistake.

Harteex
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by Harteex » Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:10 pm

I think it would be good to use a file system which Windows supports. In that way you can easily have a shared partition for both Windows and ReactOS to use.

forart
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:36 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Post by forart » Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:35 pm

The third way: OpenBFS ! Read what Robert Szeleney (THE SkyOS developer) says about it:
Question

During testing at TechIMO, we deployed SkyOS upon a FAT32 file system. However, recent news points towards a dedicated file system being developed called SkyFS. Could you explain the basic technologies behind this file system architecture?


Answer

Robert: The SkyFS (which is based on the source of OpenBFS) is a 64-bit journaled file system. SkyFS significantly raises the file size limit, which was a problem when trying to create very large files on a SkyOS FAT partition. Furthermore, SkyFS has some really nice features like very flexible attributes and query support. It is really cool to make a search over the entire SkyFS partitions using live queries.

The virtual file system layer has been updated as well. SkyOS now supports node monitoring, which informs an application immediately if a file or directory has changed. Also, the caching subsystem was updated, as well as the DirectoryName caching system, and many new additional features were added.
Check out these links:

Dominic Giampaolo's "Practical File System Design with the Be File System"

OpenBFS Team Page
»Forward Agency NPO
In progress we (always) trust.

A-v-S
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: BAEK CITY (Beek, Limburg, The Netherlands, Europe, Earth)
Contact:

Post by A-v-S » Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:28 pm

I think (Open)BFS is a good FS,
I don't like ext2 cause it is having trouble when it is not unmounted correctly.
FAT(32)/NTFS/(Open)BFS don't have mush trouble when it is not unmounted correctly. (on crash etc)
"you laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same"

http://www.il.fontys.nl/~andre

Gedi

Re: Is ROS going towards OSS file system rather than NTFS?

Post by Gedi » Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:26 pm

MadRat wrote: Then again there is probably something even better out there. Its just that EXT2 has become such a familiar sight in the non-MS world.
You mean like ReiserFS.

Anyway, NTFS is the next milestone with regards filesystems. It's essential for the full windows compatability aim of ROS.

SirTalon
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:53 pm

Post by SirTalon » Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:46 pm

The only difference between Ext2 and Ext3 is that Ext3 has journaling. You can even switch between the two on the fly with 1 remount. Ext3 really was just a hack on top of Ext2 (it works very well though). For partitions that hardly ever get read Ext2 is great (like '/boot' on Linux).

ReiserFS 3 is a great filesystem, its almost as fast as Ext2 (which is rather amazing considering its journaling). But ReiserFS 4 is the newest version, its a complete redesign. ReiserFS 4 is an atomic filesystem (much better than journaling, because only 1 write is done, and its either done completely, or not at all so no problems arise). I haven't used ReiserFS 4 yet (its not in the official Linux kernel yet), but every review of it I've seen says its amazing. It also has a plugin architecture meaning it can be extended (like adding encryption, or compression, and more novel ideas). IMHO ReiserFS 4 is probably the best default FS for ReactOS.
--
A while back one of the developers got it so ReactOS could run on Ext2 (I think it could be installed on it to).
"People do have a real life." -- w3seek

Guess that means I'm not a person :-D

Delfi
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:45 pm

Re: Is ROS going towards OSS file system rather than NTFS?

Post by Delfi » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:11 pm

MadRat wrote:If the FAT file system is stuck to then we've got a real barrier to serious partition size. FAT32 is pretty much a bloated FAT, only it allows us to put tons of files into a partition well enough that file creep eventually sets in and files eventually overlap each other and corrupt the whole MFT. It would be nice to see EXT2 replace NTFS as the defacto standard for ROS. Plenty of commercial packages already allow NTFS to EXT2 or FAT32 to EXT2 conversions. Then again there is probably something even better out there. Its just that EXT2 has become such a familiar sight in the non-MS world.


FAT has no MFT lol and files only overlap on fat FS if you do vierd things with it like reset while the computer is writing to teh disk..

DocPheniX
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:44 pm

Post by DocPheniX » Fri Feb 18, 2005 3:26 am

:shock: i cant belive your forgetting xfs ... sgi's baby .. the file system to end all file systems http://www.sgi.com/products/software/xfs/
open source too

Max. File Size
Designed to scale to 9 million TB with current hardware supporting scalability to 8000 TB on IRIX. Linux-64, 2 TB Max File Size. Solaris and Windows NT undergoing scalability testing.
Max. File System Size
Designed to scale to 18 million TB with current hardware supporting scalability to 8000 TB on IRIX. Linux-64, 500 file systems of 2 TB each. Solaris and Windows NT undergoing scalability testing.
File System Block Size
Selectable at file system creation time using mkfs_512, 512 bytes to 64KB for normal data, and up to 1MB for real-time data
File system extents (contiguous data) are configurableat file creation time using fcntl and are multiples of the file system block size

Physical Disk Sector Size Supported 512 Bytes
NFS Compatibility Using NFS 5.3, 64-bit file systems can be exported to other systems which support the NFS V3 Protocol Systems which use NFS V2 protocol may access XFS file systems within the 32-bit limit imposed by the protocol

now thats what i call a file system.. kicks any file systems behind ive seen

A-v-S
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: BAEK CITY (Beek, Limburg, The Netherlands, Europe, Earth)
Contact:

Post by A-v-S » Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:06 am

How does that filesystem behave when it is not correctly unmounted ?
"you laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same"

http://www.il.fontys.nl/~andre

Elledan
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Elledan » Fri Feb 18, 2005 11:24 am

DocPheniX wrote::shock: i cant belive your forgetting xfs ... sgi's baby .. the file system to end all file systems http://www.sgi.com/products/software/xfs/
I mentioned it :)

@A-v-S

XFS is, if anything, even more robust when it comes to such situations than other FSs. Together with JFS, these are FSs used by big companies (SGI, IBM) for mission-critical systems where data corruption could cost millions of dollars.

AcetoliNe
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:53 pm
Location: a thousand miles from Hinterland
Contact:

Post by AcetoliNe » Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:48 pm

Even if NTFS were the worst fs in the world, we'd still need it because of:
The user. Most people have NTFS partitions nowadays, and it would be very appealing to users if they could run ros on their computer with as least formatting and data loss as possible.
caveman LIKES chocolate.
we shall reinvent the wheel until it turns properly.

Pentiumforever
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:47 pm
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Contact:

Post by Pentiumforever » Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:50 pm

It think reactOS should be support so many Filessytem as possibel. And we must have NTFS because one point they are more bad then on windows and we have no change!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DotBot [Crawler], Google [Bot], Yeti [Bot] and 1 guest