ReiserFS for ReactOS & Windows -- Full Source Code

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Should ReiserFS be the ReactOS de facto filesystem driver while keeping FAT and others as optional?

Yes
85
60%
No
57
40%
 
Total votes: 142

William Dojinn
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: TN, USA
Contact:

Post by William Dojinn »

All I'm saying is that for the time being focus should be given to creating a useable enviroment. Since we're wanting security and the open scource NTFS drivers are buggy lets go with what works FOR NOW. Later on focus can be shifted to swithing over to NTFS as a default if the drivers are made less buggy.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

I should explain this better.

Post by oiaohm »

No need for defragmentation.

ext3 and ext2 are fragmentation resistant. Creating files the filesystem construction is trying to stop fragmentation from happening.

Now reiserfs moves to the next level. Hmm this file is fragmented I will fix this methord. Basicly on the fly defragmentation as part of normal operation. You open a fragmented file you resave fragmented file filesystem defrags the file as part of normal operation of the filesystem this is how ext2 and ext3 do it. This works well until the the filesystem is in the last 10% and starts running out of space to sort itself out.

Note its nothing uncommon for linux on ext2 and ext3 in actively used in servers it is not uncommon not to need defraging any more often than once every 3 years my personal longest is 8 years before the harddrive packed it in a linux filewall box with loging. Normally done by reinstall from backups lot faster than defraging. Yes 3 years between defraging reinstalling is not a major problem most likely updates required anyhow.

Reiserfs version 4.1 is ment to trip is own repacker(what you call a defrag) once a week in background as part of normal filesystem operation.

Reiserfs is a filesystem ment to beat ext2 and ext3 only way was to have resitance and inbuilt system of defraging.

Sarocet wrote:
Next, on that comparison table of Wikipedia I found that ReiserFS does not allow some Windows timestamps. Is it wrong? Is it expected to be added as metadata? Will we get files with no creation date?
Yes and no. The system will have to handle files with no creation date. Normally solved by setting creation date to last modified metadata..

If you look closely you will notice something strange ext2, ext3, xfs, jfs, zfs and ufs1. Don't have this feature. Reason its not part of Posix standard requirements. So linux/Unix systems have no need for it.

What every open source filesystem we use with reactos wil need to be expanded to have all/most of the the features of NTFS. Most common linux filesystems are required for the operation of the different security systems(Yes linux does not just have one file security system) have to be expandable.

Gasmann
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Gasmann »

chris319 wrote:I'm not saying FAT should be the default but I think it would be a mistake to dismiss FAT compatability and exclude all support for it.
FAT support MUST be included in the OS, even if everything else would be good at an OS when it doesn't have FAT support it would be trash. Yes, it would be trash because without fat support you can't even use mp3-player-usb-sticks, digital cameras etc. (they need to be formatted with fat!) and this would really be the worst thing that could happen. Not even standard floppies would work :lol: :lol:
FAT support must always be included into ReactOS as it's some kind of standard. And a possibility to install it on fat must also be there because many people want to install it on FAT. It can be fully installable on Reiserfs etc. but it must also be installable on FAT (it needn't to be the default setting, but it must be possible to select it).

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

And a possibility to install it.

Post by oiaohm »

Fat support has to stay to read devices.

The support to install on it no way in hell does this have to stay.

NTFS and reiser. Both provide developers with means of protecting the OS core from virus infectation. Fat does not any system of Fat that does is just to slow as heck.

Core of the OS with apps would be better in a defraged loop back file inside the Fat part like Beos than install in Fat without file protection system.(ever wonderd why Linux gave up on fat as a install filesystem lack of security)

NTFS in windows XP is the features are wasted by most users. It provides all the filesystem required to slow if not stop virus infections but in most cases users don't use them because it just to hard to fix a program that does not work without admin rights.

I forgot about something convertfs its stable and I don't know if fat to reiser could be done by it but it would be interseting to port and try.

Final thing in this operation is provide freedos and MSDos with a means of accessing reiserfs in a protected methord in the same kinda way it does it for FAT16 call reiserfs a network filesystem most programs will install on this.(ie freedos program don't need to see or access reactos os core) This has been done for NTFS in read only and it does it required a vxd to fool windows 9x.

Windows 9x anyone ever install this on a network drive harddrive??? If it can be installed on a network most likely we can completely drop Fat from our partitions only keep it for device access.

Gasmann
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: And a possibility to install it.

Post by Gasmann »

oiaohm wrote:The support to install on it no way in hell does this have to stay.[...]Windows 9x anyone ever install this on a network drive harddrive??? If it can be installed on a network most likely we can completely drop Fat from our partitions only keep it for device access.
This is so bad. Why do you want it not to be installable on fat partitions? Sorry to say this, but it seems to me that you are egoistic. Only because you (and maybe some others) don't want it it shouldn't be possible for everyone you say (or at least I understood it this way). Remember ReactOS is an OS similar to WINDOWS not to LINUX! So it has to be able to install on fat. Everything else would be crappy. If you don't want it to support it you should make a distro with "disabled support for installing on fat partitions". Hey it would be the same if I would say "I hate usb, so noone has to use it!" instead I should say "I hate usb, so I don't use it, but it has a reason to be cause other people like it." (just as an example with usb here). This is far better.
As said before, I don't need it to be the default but there needs to be a possibility to install it on fat.

THIS is actually why I voted for No in this thread without thinking much about it: I need the possibility to install it on fat.

steveh
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:02 pm

Reiser FS or NTFS (and FAT) / emergency floppy

Post by steveh »

Due to replace windows one day in the future, i think Reactos must support ReiserFS or NTFS for security, performance and stability reasons.

FAT/FAT32 should not be thrown out of reactos, users should alway have the option of attaching a FATxx partition, and Reactos should give choice of filesystem-type for C: upon installation. So those who want to install reactos as FATxx in order to have a DOS-floppy for emergency situations, don't need worry.

Other nice-to-have wish for later >= 1.0 reactos versions:
a boot floppy with a reactos "emergency system" for repair purposes (?)

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Because Fat32 is a dieing filesystem. From a os size.

Post by oiaohm »

It required defraging has not built in anti fragmentation system.

NTFS anti fragmentation is not great but it does slow down fragmentation.
Ext2/3 have good anti fragmentation systems
Reiser takes this to a new level defraging is part of normal filesystem operation not a user called command even able to stop and restart the defrag by leaving notes in the filesystem so it can continual with out the user need to know it happened.

Fat32 peformance is great for a new install and get slower and slower as it fragments.

Note the OS partition is normally one of the most highest accessed part of a operating system. So fragmenation is a big problem.

FatXX lacks and cannot be given the means to store the security permisions that Windows NT supports let alone Windows XP or Windows 2003. Basicly running on FatXX Cripples a great OS.

Dos support not a problem really just needs a rework by a dos programmer(do we have one here because I have a project)

Take freedos srdisk(software ram disk) merge with ltool(linux tools for dos) to produce a tool to mount and access from dos for ext2 ext3 and reiser. Yep dos floppy fix still works. Ltools is getting a little long in the tooth but it exists or take srdisk and create a captivefs system for dos.

Most systems I recover these days are done from a linux disk. So dos support is not Important to me. Even from a resuce point of view when reactos is more complete I don't think you will be reaching for a dos disk.

Windows PE(portable execution) comes to mind. Reactos should have its own version of this. Ie linux sort term until Reactos builds its own rescue system a autodetecting boot cdrom/usb key.

Please I have also used dos to recover a windows running NTFS using a tool that a person had from http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/N ... ional.html Yes it costs.
Please note how it works is captivefs for dos. Done right our dos rescue disk could access every part that reactos can.

Dos access hold no weight with me at all. Lack of dos access is just lack of a interface tool.

I want reactos to be the best version of windows ever.
It cannot be the best version of windows ever if it has the same old faults.
Windows NT 4.0 did not have fat32 support at all. You selections where FAT16 or NTFS and then it did something really stupid installed onto FAT16 and conveted it to NTFS.

Really if Fat partitions could be updated to support all the security permissions required to keep the OS safe and people where willing to take what ever speed cost this costs. I would not have a problem with it. But I don't think most users would put up with 25% loss on c: access overall performace loss to do it.

But Fat was created for dos a single user OS not running deamons(services).

To protect the system these require user seperation this is the reason why linux systems are so hard to completely infect with a virus and user seperation requires filesystem permissions.

You might call it egoistic but I am really sick of repairing machines that are completely virus infected. Fat helps viruses due to lack of permissions so I hate it. Microsoft does always not place services in independant users when they should be. And Microsoft don't provide the required tool so users don't have to login as admin to get stuff done. All these factors improve the success rate of virus writers. Lots of simple things that windows NTFS supports could have reduced the virus spreed or at least left enought of the system not effected for it to repear itself by disabling the effected users and virus scanning.

Note I would live with a fat install of reactos on a usb key for a rescue disk. General operation installs it is not worth the trouble it will cause you don't need a crystal ball to tell you that one.

I would never say "I hate usb, so noone has to use it!" where is the security grounds. Hmm usb keys nice way to sneek 4g of data in or out a business in a verry small package. Extremally usefull and also can be extreamly harmful. I know I am a little one tracked in my thoughts but Security is one of my first thoughts when I look at something. Because a Security fault most likely going to cause me a mess that I will have to fix.

Also I really really hate defraging systems I have never seen a runtime defrag system for FAT32 I have one for NTFS. I really don't see the point of install and existing on file systems that require the user not to be able to use there machines for long amounts of time while it sorts out the disk or suffer poor performace. Basicly I see reiser as a way to get out of this mess for good and give the user a better time.

Windows NT OS was ment to kill UNIX/Linux out the market. It could have just bad selection when it came to one critical word security. With security Linux/Unix was able to hold on in the market and start fighting back. Now a windows compad os with security just has to be Microsoft worst nightmare.

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

Post by MadRat »

With a translation layer between mounted volumes and the gui then it shouldn't look any different if a partition is formatted in reiser, ntfs, or fat32. Quite frankly people could treat reiser as fat32, only with the ability of an admin to lock down the files and folders with basic r-w-v permissions.

Personally I think Novell's file system is better from a security standpoint - with its wide range of permission levels - than ntfs or reiser. But since the idea is to keep everything open then its unlikely things like "verify" would ever be important to most users.
*************************************
Go Huskers!

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

I think I explained this earlier but I might not have.

Post by oiaohm »

reiserfs and ext2/ext3.. And most core linux formats are expandable in features. Just because a feature is not standard does not mean it cannot be added if required the site list standard features. MAC labels are not standard but all 2.6 kernels can place them on ext2/ext3 and reiserfs if compiled to and enabled. NSS and NWFS can give these problems. Journal in ext3 is a ext2 extention.

Note NSS support would not harm reactos. Journaling weakness is a weekness. How is its resistance to fragmentation. One real question I have because I have never useded it.

Other problems max size of 8 TiB I would like to have reiserfs max limit(limit of version 3 is low 64 bit version is 1EiB just for the max filesize) Max size of reiserfs 4 is not known yet.

Also unknown if development will continual to add more features or if reiser will take over.

Ok my information on this filesystem was not perfect I miss one I thought NSS was still closed not opensourced.

Good security does not cause user major problems. Ie user really should not feel much difference.
Good security makes it harder for someone to breach.
Protect the common targets services(deamons) normally don't require full filesystem access only the sections of the filesystem they need store or display. Also no program or service should require admin to operate. All require rights should be able to be allocated.

I would like to see a program management tool. Like Zone Alarm for filesystem access/reg access. Installers need to be able to write into OS core some times all other apps normally only need read and maybe write to one or two files. With more moden versions of programs with user information stored in profile most should not need any core write access.

Note cannot build program security management tool without a controling filesystem. A really big missing feature of windows no simple system for user to fix applications that will not work in user mode to provide any extra access right or change the rights of a reg key to that app. Ie normal operation block app. Program security management mode ask if allowed before blocking if allowed assign the right permission so app can access it.

Now this makes a virus writers job hard no simple linking into run program on startup or linking into other apps reg keys. Break into a system and the first thing you have to do is break out of another section. Better than 50 50 chance that the damage would be controled to a user or program.

You might call this harded reactos to do this requires a filesystem with permissions.

This is where reactos would start to get ahead of linux. Linux developers would most likely catchup quickly.

Gasmann
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Gasmann »

@oiaohm: Ok, I understand that you don't like fat. But still it hasn't to be impossible to install ReactOS on it. What hurts you when it supports it? You just don't use it and that's it. So it shouldn't make any difference to you whether it can or cannot be installed on fat except of one additional entry through setup. This is what I meant with the thing with usb, it was an analogy. I like it it was just the first that came in my mind :lol:
Ok, and about fragmenting: You could use an ordinary defrag solution such as O&O Defrag Professional. Just give it a job to defragment the partition automatically while your computer isn't heavily used. So this problem is solved. :wink:

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Security Hurts when install on FAT.

Post by oiaohm »

Security is my first prime goal. And I cannot use Fat to protect the OS from nastys viruses hackers spyware the stuff everyone hates. NTFS with a fight can be done but the provided tools work against you in current windows but on FAT cannot even defend current windows.

Removing the entry is removing the means of being a fool. Some early versions of Linux had fat install options. This was given up due to fat not being able to provide the security without to much speed loss. This was latter replaced with a loop back filesystem. Ie you install reactos on a fat partition it hides itself in a single file formated with a filesystem that supports the required secuirty. So its not really install on fat more like installing inside fat.

So the fat install option goes replaced with a loop back install option. Now as long as one file is locked on the fat partition. The problem of security does not exist with this methord.

The problem is I repair peoples machine's so you provide them with a bad option they will take it and I will have to fix it.

List of bad options provided by windows Admin user allowed to be the default user. No tools to make programs demarding Admin user be tricked into thinking they have it when the don't chroot under linux, bsd and so on really big missing feature. Allowing the the security of the OS to be given up just to use FAT mainly because they did not create the tools for users to used the secuirty system they created and cloned ie(ntfs is part unix security and some of their own).

Same problem people request to the point of demarding FAT32 support in Windows NT. This really sould never been provided as a install option.

All you do by directly installing on FAT is disable all the file secuirty you had under NTFS for what. What was the real gain.

A weaker OS plaged with virues that do more damage than the would have be able to and other problems all because no file security to stand in the way of the problems. Day in Day out I have to fix problems caused by this. I want to see the end. The day that a Windows OS or a Windows Compad OS can stand side by side with relitives UNIX/Linux in Secuirty.

It just hurt when you have to say sorry to say but your kid that was using X account on you computer has let X virus into you system destorying the program that contated your accounting information leading to the data file being destoryed.

I wish for a day when I never have to say that again. And this is the difference between a machine install on NTFS and FAT32 and with users setup correctly.

The setup correcly one is my sons account it not working correctly I get there and find the account infected and fix it. No important data hurt by one persons mistake. A home computer normal has at least 2 different users a mistake from one should not hurt the other.

I was in hope that someone else here could see from my point of view. I guess from handling Linux Apple and other different OS have given me a different point of view.

@Gasmann would install on FAT32 threw loop back(a single file containing the complete OS) so the OS has the protection its ment to. This still requires a filesystem with the required support. Note I don't normally class this as install on FAT32 since the OS sees the file as the filesystem that it contatains not FAT32..

I have most likely repeated myself on some of this.

elektrik
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:20 am

Re: I can Microsoft parts forgot names.

Post by elektrik »

oiaohm wrote: By the way reiser does have emergency boot disks. The linux ones Plenty of them knoppix is nice graphical able to access the partition even burn cdroms if you have two drives in you machine one for the knoppix disk and one the burner. Even a copy of openoffice and able to print. This is really nice.

In future yes reactos will have to create its own resuce disks but reiser does not provide a problem. NTFS does since not all linux boot disks can access it.
You're kidding right? You don't actually want users of a "Windows" clone O.S. to boot into a Linux prompt, with a "foreign" command line, type in completely foreign commands (compared to DOS/Windows Command box) to access their data do you? The only way it would work is if it booted to one of these graphical rescue apps automatically; however, that would require the users to learn that program (not necessarily a big deal if it were user friendly), however I keep coming back to the "windows" clone idea-regardless of the File system used, the user *MUST* be shielded from the fact that it isn't a MS file system, which means bottom line that it must act and feel like what they put out

steveh
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:02 pm

ReiserFS pro. Question about ext2?

Post by steveh »

For purpose of building reactos svn snapshots myself, i have created a supplemental partition "d:" of 7GB which unfortunately must be FAT32 to be accessible as well from win2000 as from REACTOS.

And i experienced that since increasing the size from 2 or 3 GB to 7GB, the access performance especially from win2000 to that partition has gone extremely poor. I think that's another argument for giving Reactos a better fs-type, for example ReiserFS. (Then i would probably compile reactos not from win2000, but from linux).

Other question:
does Reactos at this moment support classic "ext2" or not? I see that there is an "ext2" directory in the build tree, with a series of driver component sources, but reactos ignores my linux ext2 logical partitions.

StopTCPA2
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 10:52 pm

Reiser & NTFS

Post by StopTCPA2 »

I am happy with FAT32. It should stay. Read, write & install on.
:idea:

I do not think that NTFS prevents from viruses & worms & spyware.
Not to talk about fragmenting :D

Is there an information around how NTFS or REISER work ??
Human language, not some 100 MB of code.

:?:

And why FAT32 should be considered as "no longer acceptable"

:?:
...

Dr. Fred
Developer
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:09 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Reiser & NTFS

Post by Dr. Fred »

I do not think that NTFS prevents from viruses & worms & spyware.
Not to talk about fragmenting Very Happy
It can, when it prevents viruses to ascess your system files.
StopTCPA2 wrote:Is there an information around how NTFS or REISER work ??
Human language, not some 100 MB of code.
Wikipedia.

BTW: Did you know that TCPA has been stopped ?
Where do you want ReactOS to go today ?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest