FAT48

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

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

Re: FAT48

Post by Haos » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:34 pm

And security... NTFS comes to mind?:>

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 2:16 pm

FAT32 doesn't have security. Nobody seemed to care.

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

Re: FAT48

Post by GoBusto » Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:39 pm

I seem to recall that NTFS deals with unexpected crashes much more elegantly than FAT does.

Essentially, NTFS offers better security, reliability, larger file size support and probably a load of other things that I've forgotten. Ext* probably does this too, from what little I can recall about it right now.

Therefore, it would make more sense to implement support for either of these systems than Yet Another FAT System.

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 3:39 pm

GoBusto wrote:I seem to recall that NTFS deals with unexpected crashes much more elegantly than FAT does.

Essentially, NTFS offers better security, reliability, larger file size support and probably a load of other things that I've forgotten. Ext* probably does this too, from what little I can recall about it right now.

Therefore, it would make more sense to implement support for either of these systems than Yet Another FAT System.
Keep in mind i'm not actually advocating the creation of a new FS by the ROS devs. I just feel that the average user does not seem to care much about the features that NTFS offers, and for that matter, there have been instances where the default XP installation on most retail PCs are done on a FAT32 partition, and yet no heckles are raised. This may mean that creating a "no-frills" FS with support for large files and volumes may be a nice idea, but it shouldn't be done by us.

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

Re: FAT48

Post by alexei » Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:55 am

...may be a nice idea, but it shouldn't be done by us.
Why not? :) I bet the person who implemented FAT32 can do FAT48 it in a week or so.
Taking in account that MS made a "system driver update package" that implements extFAT on XP (and 2K3?), it should be possible to install FAT48 on MS Win.

BTW, can exFAT http://support.microsoft.com/kb/955704 be installed on ROS?
Reimplementing of exFAT has to be licensed, but what about MS "update package" on a MS Win compatible OS?

Pisarz
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 9:29 am

Re: FAT48

Post by Pisarz » Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:18 pm

"Security" from NTFS crashed my Windows desktop last time. Now I'm using only FAT32 filesystem.

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

Re: FAT48

Post by EmuandCo » Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:04 pm

Then you did set up something wrong. NTFS and the WIndows Security system are rock solid.
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

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

Re: FAT48

Post by Lone_Rifle » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:20 pm

Lone_Rifle wrote: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.
http://worm.me.uk/2009/07/16/announcing ... e-storage/

Incidentally, the same guy is intending to use his FullFAT library to re-implement our FAT IFS. He has our support, so do go over and have a look at what else he might have in store.

Dany0
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:21 pm

Re: FAT48

Post by Dany0 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:33 pm

We need FAT512 :)

Or F4T2000. So MS won't give a ***** :lol:

djmaze
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:36 pm

Re: FAT48

Post by djmaze » Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:54 am

Not another FAT system please...
Why shouldn't you Journal your data?

Sure i never tried to repair a NTFS partition but it worked on Ext3

LVM support now that would be cool!
Just hot-plug a new drive when no space is left and extend the size.

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

Re: FAT48

Post by forart » Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:27 am

I would love to see HPFS (High Performance File System) from OS/2 (that was supported in Windows NT 3.1, 3.5 and 3.51) implemented, instead.

note: i found this tool called fst - File System Tool that seems interesting...
»Forward Agency NPO
In progress we (always) trust.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: FAT48

Post by Z98 » Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:05 pm

HPFS suffers from many of the same limitations as FAT. While it solves a few issues, it doesn't solve any of the ones made more relevant by large files and drives today. That and it lacks journaling. The demand for it would also be very small, as the instances of HPFS running in production would likely be legacy, so the chances of us bothering with it are slim.

tomleem
Posts: 627
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:59 pm
Location: New Hampshire of United States of America
Contact:

Re: FAT48

Post by tomleem » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:49 pm

eComStation and OS/2 Warp use HPFS. The newer version of eComStation is using a bootable JFS to overcome the limitations of HPFS. :ugeek:
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Tom Lee M / BigGoofyGuy
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bludog, DotBot [Crawler], Google [Bot] and 3 guests