filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

what's your favorite fs?

xfs
5
10%
jfs
1
2%
ext2/3
24
46%
ext4
3
6%
reiserfs
3
6%
reiser4
3
6%
ntfs
6
12%
fat32
3
6%
hfs
4
8%
union/squash/whatever
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 52

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby d3adf001 » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:00 am UTC

i use to be a reiserfs person then i moved to xfs and love it.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby EvanED » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:14 am UTC

I haven't used it, but Reiser4 looks fantastic. I don't know much about XFS or JFS or ext4, but at least if you ignore those, next in the line is NTFS and the recent versions of HFS+/HFSX (since 10.4), then ReiserFS.

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby Anpheus » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:19 am UTC

I wrote my own filesystem, it uses the absolute minimum space: it simply puts every file in sorted order (using pancake sort) with a header that consists of the filename and other information. Searching is linear as no table of contents exists.

As far as space-time tradeoffs go, I tend towards space. Hard drives are expensive, man!


ZFS ftw
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby d3adf001 » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:22 am UTC

EvanED wrote:I haven't used it, but Reiser4 looks fantastic. I don't know much about XFS or JFS or ext4, but at least if you ignore those, next in the line is NTFS and the recent versions of HFS+/HFSX (since 10.4), then ReiserFS.


you really put reiserfs behind ntfs? xfs is pretty cool tho. you should check it out. reiser4 took a few of xfs' good ideas

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby EvanED » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:28 am UTC

d3adf001 wrote:you really put reiserfs behind ntfs? xfs is pretty cool tho. you should check it out. reiser4 took a few of xfs' good ideas

I hold what seems to be an unpopular opinion that places FS metadata extremely highly in my evaluation, and NTFS provides better support for it than ReiserFS.

NTFS also supports native encryption and compression. (This makes it the only FS that I know supports both. ZFS and Reiser4 may...)

User avatar
davean
Site Ninja
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:50 am UTC
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby davean » Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:44 am UTC

EvanED wrote:
d3adf001 wrote:you really put reiserfs behind ntfs? xfs is pretty cool tho. you should check it out. reiser4 took a few of xfs' good ideas

I hold what seems to be an unpopular opinion that places FS metadata extremely highly in my evaluation, and NTFS provides better support for it than ReiserFS.

NTFS also supports native encryption and compression. (This makes it the only FS that I know supports both. ZFS and Reiser4 may...)


Why should that be a filesystem feature and not something sitting between the filesystem and the block device?

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby EvanED » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:00 am UTC

davean wrote:Why should that be a filesystem feature and not something sitting between the filesystem and the block device?

If it's in the file system you can do these operations on a per-file basis. For instance, only compress really large files or infrequently access files, or only encrypt security-sensitive files. If you did at below the file system, you would only be able to operate at the granularity of the entire partition unless you passed additional information (e.g. "encrypt these next blocks I'm writing") from the file system down.

(As a counterpoint, putting it below the FS means that you instantly get support in all file systems. It's not clear that there is one "right" choice in this matter.)

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby Anpheus » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:18 am UTC

davean wrote:
EvanED wrote:
d3adf001 wrote:you really put reiserfs behind ntfs? xfs is pretty cool tho. you should check it out. reiser4 took a few of xfs' good ideas

I hold what seems to be an unpopular opinion that places FS metadata extremely highly in my evaluation, and NTFS provides better support for it than ReiserFS.

NTFS also supports native encryption and compression. (This makes it the only FS that I know supports both. ZFS and Reiser4 may...)


Why should that be a filesystem feature and not something sitting between the filesystem and the block device?


As a filesystem feature you can do all sorts of cool things like steganographic information hiding, you get the benefit of being able to layer your encryption to provide plausible deniability. Full drive encryption, of course, still has its place, but is extremely limited. If you utilize only full drive encryption, then at least in the UK your keys can be requested by the government as part of an investigation and it is illegal to not give them your keys. This is why steganography and hidden volumes are so important, because while "They" can always prove you have encrypted or hidden data, you can set it up in a way that there are multiple valid keys that provide different amounts of information, and there's no way to prove more information exists from what you give them.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
FACM
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:40 pm UTC

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby FACM » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:24 pm UTC

I used to think that having a filesystem that had built-in encryption was a good thing. I used the NTFS encryption on some documents with sensitive data. Then, I had to reinstall windows, and in the process somehow got a different encryption key. I had a resume, but I can't do anything with it now. I'll need to rewrite it one of these days.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby EvanED » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:45 pm UTC

FACM wrote:I used to think that having a filesystem that had built-in encryption was a good thing. I used the NTFS encryption on some documents with sensitive data. Then, I had to reinstall windows, and in the process somehow got a different encryption key.

Yes, that happens. You should back up your Windows encryption key the same way you should back up your PGP encryption key or anything else. Vista actually nags you about this for a while after a new install.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby zenten » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:18 pm UTC

I like ext3 with full journalling support. Everything else mangles data too much if the computer freezes due to bad hardware (I also half believe that I let out some sort of EM field that messes up computers).

User avatar
Cheese
and spam. (Euggh)
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Location: ¿burning you?

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby Cheese » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:46 pm UTC

fat32, for the sheer semi-antiquity of it. And because I guessed noone else would pick it.
hermaj wrote:No-one. Will. Be. Taking. Cheese's. Spot.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Cheese is utterly correct on all fronts.
SecondTalon wrote:That thing that Cheese just said. Do that.
Meaux_Pas wrote:I hereby disagree and declare Cheese to be brilliant.
Image

User avatar
Korandder
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:12 am UTC
Location: LoadingReadyRun Australian Astrophysical Observatory
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby Korandder » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:51 pm UTC

But fat32 can not support files larger than 4 GB. No DVD images for you.
Image

User avatar
davean
Site Ninja
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:50 am UTC
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby davean » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:55 pm UTC

zenten wrote:I like ext3 with full journalling support. Everything else mangles data too much if the computer freezes due to bad hardware (I also half believe that I let out some sort of EM field that messes up computers).


Ah, ext3, the only filesystem I'velost data too more then once ... I'm down right scared of ext3 at this point.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby EvanED » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:16 am UTC

Korandder wrote:But fat32 can not support files larger than 4 GB. No DVD images for you.

And it doesn't support metadata, doesn't have journaling, doesn't use a particularly good on-disk layout, and doesn't support access controls. The only thing it has going for it is that everyone understands it quite well.

photosinensis
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:17 am UTC

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby photosinensis » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:17 am UTC

I'm lazy, I'll just use ext3. Sure, there may be better systems out there, but I've never had a chance to use them.
While I clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning,
And my heart was filled with mournng, mourning for my dear amour.
"'Tis not possible!" I uttered, "Give me back my free hardcore!"
Quoth the server: 404.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby zenten » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:04 pm UTC

davean wrote:
zenten wrote:I like ext3 with full journalling support. Everything else mangles data too much if the computer freezes due to bad hardware (I also half believe that I let out some sort of EM field that messes up computers).


Ah, ext3, the only filesystem I'velost data too more then once ... I'm down right scared of ext3 at this point.


Odd, I've never had a problem with it, at least with full journaling.

Now reiser on the other hand, man that likes to mangle my files.

User avatar
wing
the /b/slayer
Posts: 1876
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 5:56 am UTC

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby wing » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:05 am UTC

EvanED wrote:
Korandder wrote:But fat32 can not support files larger than 4 GB. No DVD images for you.

And it doesn't support metadata, doesn't have journaling, doesn't use a particularly good on-disk layout, and doesn't support access controls. The only thing it has going for it is that everyone understands it quite well.

Everyone understands it because it's stupidly simple.
I AM A SEXY, SHOELESS GOD OF WAR!
Akula wrote:Our team has turned into this hate-fueled juggernaut of profit. It's goddamn wonderful.

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby d3adf001 » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:56 pm UTC

wow i never thought that the ext's would be so popular. i would have thought that killerFS (reiserfs) would clean house

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby EvanED » Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:05 pm UTC

wing wrote:Everyone understands it because it's stupidly simple.

Oh, I agree. But "everyone understands it" is still very useful. Until recently, a shared FAT partition was the best way to share data on a dual booting system.

d3adf001 wrote:wow i never thought that the ext's would be so popular. i would have thought that killerFS (reiserfs) would clean house

ext seems to be the "default" choice for the Linux distros I've used. (As if that sample size is large. :roll:) I've always thought of it as sort of "eh..."

User avatar
Hench
Porn, hence, Man
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Right between my eyes
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby Hench » Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:56 pm UTC

I like NTFS. But I run Vista and don't dual-boot anything, so take from that what you will. :lol:
Spoiler:
Your perceptions will not change reality, but simply color it.

User avatar
wing
the /b/slayer
Posts: 1876
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 5:56 am UTC

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby wing » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:06 am UTC

Frankly, nobody's ever made a case against EXT* that I've seen. Against certain varients of it in certain scenarios, yes. But not against the whole thing. And I've never seen an argument FOR ReiserFS over EXT*, either. So I go with the default EXT3 because it's fewer keypresses in the partitioner (and EXT2 for things that are occasional-write-only.
I AM A SEXY, SHOELESS GOD OF WAR!
Akula wrote:Our team has turned into this hate-fueled juggernaut of profit. It's goddamn wonderful.

User avatar
necroforest
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:46 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby necroforest » Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:36 am UTC

Where's the "File systems are for wimps, I can manage my own sectors, thank you" option? :lol:
ONE PART CLASS, ONE PART WHISKEY, TWO PARTS GUN! SERVE NEAT!

User avatar
FACM
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:40 pm UTC

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby FACM » Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:09 am UTC

wing wrote:Frankly, nobody's ever made a case against EXT* that I've seen. Against certain varients of it in certain scenarios, yes. But not against the whole thing. And I've never seen an argument FOR ReiserFS over EXT*, either. So I go with the default EXT3 because it's fewer keypresses in the partitioner (and EXT2 for things that are occasional-write-only.


Reiser is approx. 15 times faster when dealing with many small files than EXT*, and approx. 2 times faster overall than EXT*. Given that the linux core is a ton of small files, it makes a bit more sense to use Reiser for speed.

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby d3adf001 » Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:18 am UTC

wing wrote:Frankly, nobody's ever made a case against EXT* that I've seen. Against certain varients of it in certain scenarios, yes. But not against the whole thing. And I've never seen an argument FOR ReiserFS over EXT*, either. So I go with the default EXT3 because it's fewer keypresses in the partitioner (and EXT2 for things that are occasional-write-only.


ext has a lost+found. too bad nina will never be found

User avatar
enk
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:20 am UTC
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby enk » Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:12 am UTC

d3adf001 wrote:ext has a lost+found. too bad nina will never be found


Ouch...!
phlip wrote:Ha HA! Recycled emacs jokes.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby EvanED » Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:27 pm UTC

enk wrote:
d3adf001 wrote:ext has a lost+found. too bad nina will never be found


Ouch...!

Oh, no, I can top that. From a Wired article about Reiser and the trial:
Wired wrote:For the past two decades, he has struggled to create a different method of organizing data. His approach, known as ReiserFS, is a file system unlike any other. Rather than assign data a fixed location on a hard drive, it uses algorithms to frequently reposition information, including the code that makes up the file system itself. It elegantly maximizes storage space, but it can also complicate data recovery when a computer crashes. If the algorithms are corrupted, the file system will be unable to locate its own position. All the data it organizes disappears into an indistinguishable mass of 0s and 1s. The contents of that hard drive will be irretrievably lost.

In Reiser's case, a critical piece of data — the location of Nina Reiser — has gone missing.

(Emphasis mine.)

User avatar
wing
the /b/slayer
Posts: 1876
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 5:56 am UTC

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby wing » Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:54 pm UTC

FACM wrote:
wing wrote:Frankly, nobody's ever made a case against EXT* that I've seen. Against certain varients of it in certain scenarios, yes. But not against the whole thing. And I've never seen an argument FOR ReiserFS over EXT*, either. So I go with the default EXT3 because it's fewer keypresses in the partitioner (and EXT2 for things that are occasional-write-only.


Reiser is approx. 15 times faster when dealing with many small files than EXT*, and approx. 2 times faster overall than EXT*. Given that the linux core is a ton of small files, it makes a bit more sense to use Reiser for speed.

Impressive. Define small files and I'll tell you whether I care or not for anything besides my OS partitions.
I AM A SEXY, SHOELESS GOD OF WAR!
Akula wrote:Our team has turned into this hate-fueled juggernaut of profit. It's goddamn wonderful.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby zenten » Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:18 am UTC

d3adf001 wrote:wow i never thought that the ext's would be so popular. i would have thought that killerFS (reiserfs) would clean house


ReiserFS doesn't have proper journaling support, so I wouldn't trust it with any important data. For temp stuff for like databases or something it's fine though, and is faster than ext3.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby EvanED » Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:24 am UTC

Define "proper journaling support". Do you require data journaling?

User avatar
davean
Site Ninja
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:50 am UTC
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby davean » Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:53 pm UTC

EvanED wrote:Define "proper journaling support". Do you require data journaling?


If you all want journaling, why don't you use a log based filesystem?

User avatar
Amnesiasoft
Posts: 2573
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 4:28 am UTC
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby Amnesiasoft » Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:24 pm UTC

I pick ext3, primarily because I've only use FAT, NTFS, and EXT 2/3. I hate FAT because it once mangled some of my files after it decided it had 65 of 64MB of space free. NTFS is okay, but EXT keeps itself from getting ultra fragmented (or so I've been told)

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby zenten » Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:31 pm UTC

davean wrote:
EvanED wrote:Define "proper journaling support". Do you require data journaling?


If you all want journaling, why don't you use a log based filesystem?


Because there aren't any stable ones for Linux?

EvanED wrote:Define "proper journaling support". Do you require data journaling?


Well, yeah, otherwise what's the point?

I want to have it so if my computer crashes mid-write the file is still fully intact.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby EvanED » Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:53 pm UTC

zenten wrote:Well, yeah, otherwise what's the point?

So your file system stays in a consistent state? I personally think that's fairly important.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby zenten » Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:33 pm UTC

EvanED wrote:
zenten wrote:Well, yeah, otherwise what's the point?

So your file system stays in a consistent state? I personally think that's fairly important.


Some program at boot that checks it could do the same thing though.

But yeah, I exaggerated a bit, what you're talking about is a good idea, I just don't see it as sufficient. It's also not like my FAT32 (or FAT16 for that matter) system ever became borked through something like this, I would just lose some files, just like with metadata journaling.

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby Anpheus » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:47 am UTC

zenten wrote:
EvanED wrote:
zenten wrote:Well, yeah, otherwise what's the point?

So your file system stays in a consistent state? I personally think that's fairly important.


Some program at boot that checks it could do the same thing though.

But yeah, I exaggerated a bit, what you're talking about is a good idea, I just don't see it as sufficient. It's also not like my FAT32 (or FAT16 for that matter) system ever became borked through something like this, I would just lose some files, just like with metadata journaling.


It depends on what you're using it for. If you were dealing with information you absolutely couldn't lose, then you would not trust your filesystem to not fail in the worst case. You would want full data journaling to ensure the safety of all data. In certain industries you may lose your job losing even an email. Certainly, with the advent of SOX regulation, you would find the judge would not be happy with your decision to use a filesystem that is more likely to lose data if there were incomplete emails laying around.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby zenten » Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:14 am UTC

Anpheus wrote:
zenten wrote:
EvanED wrote:
zenten wrote:Well, yeah, otherwise what's the point?

So your file system stays in a consistent state? I personally think that's fairly important.


Some program at boot that checks it could do the same thing though.

But yeah, I exaggerated a bit, what you're talking about is a good idea, I just don't see it as sufficient. It's also not like my FAT32 (or FAT16 for that matter) system ever became borked through something like this, I would just lose some files, just like with metadata journaling.


It depends on what you're using it for. If you were dealing with information you absolutely couldn't lose, then you would not trust your filesystem to not fail in the worst case. You would want full data journaling to ensure the safety of all data. In certain industries you may lose your job losing even an email. Certainly, with the advent of SOX regulation, you would find the judge would not be happy with your decision to use a filesystem that is more likely to lose data if there were incomplete emails laying around.


Um, I agree? I'm saying that metadata journaling doesn't offer much over no journalling (it largely amounts to a speed efficiently thing), while full journaling does offer a lot, like you said.

I mean, it's worth a slight slowdown on data transfer to my hard drive (which is already stupid slow compared to memory) to be sure that next time my computer crashes because I have crappy air flow over my monitor, or because my video card is crap, or because the power in my apartment building sucks (all true) I don't lose all my bookmarks (which has happened several times before).

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby Anpheus » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:44 am UTC

I'm so sorry, I missed several intervening posts and didn't interpret your stance correctly. Error on my part.


Pretend I was talking to a mysterious someone who actually thinks data journaling isn't a useful feature for critical systems. :(
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
enk
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:20 am UTC
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Contact:

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby enk » Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:30 am UTC

Pardon me for asking, but what are the advantages of zfs?

I've never used anything but NTFS and ext3 on my own boxes (ok, so maybe FAT but that was before I knew what a filesystem was).
phlip wrote:Ha HA! Recycled emacs jokes.

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: filesystem (besides zfs because its a given)

Postby Anpheus » Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:33 am UTC

ZFS does a lot of stuff at the filesystem level that most existing filesystems require hardware to do (RAID, some nifty volume utilities) and also has features that make it very easy to do backups with.

You know how "Time Machine" on Apple's Macintosh OSX 10.5 is supposed to be whiz-bang cool & automatic? It isn't. It scans your whole hard drive the first time around, then has to refresh its scan every once in a while whenever filesystem hooks fail to give it correct information. I guess the end result is that it's much more inefficient than you think, and older versions of files and directories, while appearing to be in the same folder, are actually hidden files and directories somewhere else on the hard drive. ZFS would do all of this automatically, and let you peruse previous snapshots with arbitrary delta t so long as you had sufficient hard drive space to do so.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/


Return to “Religious Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests