FAT48

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

alexei
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:29 pm

FAT48

Post by alexei » Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:38 am

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
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:20 pm

Re: FAT48

Post by cuttysark » Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:19 pm

What would be the major advantages besides the files size?

Best regards

Black_Fox
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: FAT48

Post by Black_Fox » Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:45 pm

Why? Nobody else has such a filesystem...

Lone_Rifle
Test Team
Posts: 802
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:17 pm
Contact:

Re: FAT48

Post by Lone_Rifle » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:59 pm

see exFAT.

EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4294
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: FAT48

Post by EmuandCo » Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:28 pm

Which is FAT64 in theory
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

alexei
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:29 pm

Re: FAT48

Post by alexei » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:03 am

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
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: FAT48

Post by Black_Fox » Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:03 pm

alexei wrote: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
Posts: 579
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:13 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: FAT48

Post by GoBusto » Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:12 pm

alexei wrote:
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
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:29 pm

Re: FAT48

Post by alexei » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:08 am

"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
Test Team
Posts: 802
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:17 pm
Contact:

Re: FAT48

Post by Lone_Rifle » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:09 am

alexei wrote:
"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.
Last edited by Lone_Rifle on Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Black_Fox
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: FAT48

Post by Black_Fox » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:20 am

alexei wrote: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
Test Team
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am
Contact:

Re: FAT48

Post by Haos » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:41 am

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

Lone_Rifle
Test Team
Posts: 802
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:17 pm
Contact:

Re: FAT48

Post by Lone_Rifle » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:59 am

Haos wrote: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
Test Team
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am
Contact:

Re: FAT48

Post by Haos » Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:27 pm

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
Test Team
Posts: 802
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:17 pm
Contact:

Re: FAT48

Post by Lone_Rifle » Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:58 pm

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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests