FAT48

[alexei]

It may be relatively simple to develop FAT48 file system as "modified clone" of FAT32 with 48 bit adressing, which would allow files over 4Gb and smaller clusters on a big partitions. While being less reliable, FAT32 has some advantages over NTFS, though the main reason for this proposal is to provide ROS with the file system free of FAT32 limitations.

[cuttysark]

What would be the major advantages besides the files size?

Best regards

[Black_Fox]

Why? Nobody else has such a filesystem...

[Lone_Rifle]

see exFAT.

[EmuandCo]

Which is FAT64 in theory

[alexei]

What would be the major advantages besides the files size?

The files size is the major user advantage, other advantages, such as less overhead are minor
The major advantage for developers is simplisity of implementation.

Why? Nobody else has such a filesystem...

They will have it as soon as it's ready for use. I mean it may be used on MS Win. Linux version would be not hard to make as well.

see exFAT.

Which is FAT64 in theory

1. Licensing issues.
2. exFAT has some additional features, which I think FAT48 should not support for the sake of simplicity of implementation.
I see FAT48 as a simple port of FAT32 to 48bit HDD addressing without any other changes/improvements. That is not the best, but the simplest solution with some instant advantages, especially if FAT48 be made to work on any Windows OS.

On a philosophical note: can't people just modify existing stuff to take off its limitations and only then begin adding new features and make (sometime questionable) improvements?

[Black_Fox]

They will have it as soon as it's ready for use. I mean it may be used on MS Win. Linux version would be not hard to make as well.

Well yes, but I'd prefer NTFS anyway and firstly ROS's FAT32 needs to work properly.

[GoBusto]

Why? Nobody else has such a filesystem...

They will have it as soon as it's ready for use. I mean it may be used on MS Win. Linux version would be not hard to make as well.

...

I see FAT48 as a simple port of FAT32 to 48bit HDD addressing without any other changes/improvements. That is not the best, but the simplest solution with some instant advantages, especially if FAT48 be made to work on any Windows OS.

The fatal flaw here is that you're confusing "other OSes COULD support FAT48" with "other OSes WILL BOTHER TO support FAT48" - after all, why should Bob Linuxguy bother supporting some obscure filesystem such as FAT48 when he already has support for the commonly used FAT16/FAT32/FATX and more advanced systems such as NTFS or ext2/3/4?

The only reasons that FAT is still around are:

(A) Backwards compatability (Interoperability).
(B) USB Flash drives tend to use it (Interoperability).
(C) Ease of implementation.

I doubt that many people would consider using FAT as their main file system any more. Flash drives use FAT32 because it is almost 100% sure to be supported by a given operating system.

If/When a more advanced system is needed by ReactOS in the future, then ext*, NTFS, ReiserFS, ZFS etc. can be used. They are already widely supported and will allow interoperability with other Operating systems.

[alexei]

"other OSes WILL BOTHER TO support FAT48"

I don't really care about other OSes, I just mentioned that they can as a side note.
For myself I would definitely prefer FAT over NTFS, EXT-N and other complex FS.
The reasons are: less overhead, simple data recovery, better defragmentation, and of course, simplicity.
The only advantage of NTFS is compression, though NTFS may hang on a big compressed files (50Gb) - admitted MS bug.

[Lone_Rifle]

"other OSes WILL BOTHER TO support FAT48"

I don't really care about other OSes, I just mentioned that they can as a side note.
For myself I would definitely prefer FAT over NTFS, EXT-N and other complex FS.
The reasons are: less overhead, simple data recovery, better defragmentation, and of course, simplicity.
The only advantage of NTFS is compression, though NTFS may hang on a big compressed files (50Gb) - admitted MS bug.

You don't need files > 4GB in size. Unless you're a video editor.

[Black_Fox]

I don't really care about other OSes

You really should, because until a certain one is completely reimplemented, you won't get bonus anything.

[Haos]

Wrong Lone. DVD images can go easily beyond 4GB, same with movies in high quality/resolution.

[Lone_Rifle]

Wrong Lone. DVD images can go easily beyond 4GB, same with movies in high quality/resolution.

Well the question then would be what you are doing with DVD images or high-resolution movies. Are you video editing? Fine. Are you cutting a software release? You don't necessarily need DVD images for that. Are you engaged in copyright theft? Surely it's more a choice of morals than it is a choice of filesystems?

[Haos]

No, i`m enforcing my right to keep a copy of original, purchased media for my private use. Several civilized countries have such laws, supporting fair use of legally obtained goods. Its a matter of filesystem then, not morals.

[Lone_Rifle]

If so, then there may be a case for a file system which does not require a license to implement (a la exFAT), supports large file sizes and volumes, and is free of features other than the ability to store and retrieve files.