Page 2 of 2

Re: FAT48

Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:34 pm
by Haos
And security... NTFS comes to mind?:>

Re: FAT48

Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:16 pm
by Lone_Rifle
FAT32 doesn't have security. Nobody seemed to care.

Re: FAT48

Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:39 pm
by GoBusto
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.

Re: FAT48

Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:39 pm
by Lone_Rifle
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.

Re: FAT48

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:55 am
by alexei
...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?

Re: FAT48

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:18 pm
by Pisarz
"Security" from NTFS crashed my Windows desktop last time. Now I'm using only FAT32 filesystem.

Re: FAT48

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:04 pm
by EmuandCo
Then you did set up something wrong. NTFS and the WIndows Security system are rock solid.

Re: FAT48

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:20 pm
by Lone_Rifle
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.

Re: FAT48

Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:33 pm
by Dany0
We need FAT512 :)

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

Re: FAT48

Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:54 am
by djmaze
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.

Re: FAT48

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:27 am
by forart
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...

Re: FAT48

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:05 pm
by Z98
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.

Re: FAT48

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:49 pm
by tomleem
eComStation and OS/2 Warp use HPFS. The newer version of eComStation is using a bootable JFS to overcome the limitations of HPFS. :ugeek: