So when will we get a successor to NTFS, anyway? | The Coffeehouse

Tom Servo
W-hat?

Since Seagate and Hitachi are both releasing terabyte drives, splitting disks in partitions isn't cool anymore, and considering that NTFS sucks like hell with partitions that size (both performance and memory requirements), wouldn't it be time for an overhauled filesystem?

ZFS seems like a nice idea for such large drives, but Sun would do hell before porting this to Windows. Microsoft would be too proud to license it, anyway, even though all these hollow promises and agreements of cooperation with Sun. And the last thing we'd see is an appropriate high performance file system, since Microsoft still thinks that ol' NTFS is adequate.

Not to mention that filesystems require a fair share of failsafe functionality. Such big drives are annoying to back up. Adequately sized solutions, like tape drives, cost way too much.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

What with the Hans Resier trial and him having to sell his company and product to fund his defence council, why doesn't Microsoft buy it whilst it's going?

idividebyzero

WinFS will be the file system in the next version of windows. However it will be based on NTFS, so really there wont be much of an improvement.

What Im most sick of is BIOS, I was angry when MS said they were dropping UEFI from Vista.

DouglasH
Just Causual

They didn't say that they were dropping UEFI from vista. just that it will not be in the Initial release.

And Since there is NO systems with UEFI available, nor none on the current Horizon I can understand that decision. Although I do Agree that it would be nice to eliminate as much of bios as possible. and move the PC into the 21st century at boot time.

Tom I do agree, it is past time for a New FS, NTFS is showing its age in some areas. although it has worked great in larger systems that are distributed.

Although some of the issue is that most Local HD are not enterprise level hardrives and yet still try to push more data into the same area. Although without a huge difference in drive speed or mechanics. so the larger it gets the more time it takes to start doing simple things such as defraging or disk scans. Virus scans etc etc. Somve it isn't the fs issue but the physical limitations of the HDD themselves.

It would be nice to see an FS that is fast and can help to "Understand" the data that is stored on it.

DouglasH

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

DouglasH wrote:
And Since there is NO systems with UEFI available

3rd generation Apple iMac and the Intel MacPro models?

ZippyV
Fired Up

I thought all 64-bit based systems had efi or was it only with Itanium based systems?

LarryOsterman

W3bbo wrote:
What with the Hans Resier trial and him having to sell his company and product to fund his defence council, why doesn't Microsoft buy it whilst it's going?

What does ResierFS bring to the table that NTFS doesn't already have?

littleguru
<3 Seattle

idividebyzero wrote:
WinFS will be the file system in the next version of windows. However it will be based on NTFS, so really there wont be much of an improvement.

What Im most sick of is BIOS, I was angry when MS said they were dropping UEFI from Vista.

I think the name "WinFS" is a little bit missleading, as it builds upon an existing file system (NTFS).

DouglasH
Just Causual

both systems of the mac are EFI 1.1 based. not based on UEFI.

As well as some Intel Motherboards that are based on EFI.

there are some significant changes between EFI and UEFI.

DouglasH

DouglasH
Just Causual

ZippyV wrote:
I thought all 64-bit based systems had efi or was it only with Itanium based systems?

Only the Itanic had EFI as its base. primarily as it is a 64 bit chip from the ground up. so initializeing with a 16 bit Bios was a no go from the start. EFI was designed first as the transfer point to the OS for the Itanium platform.

EFI isn't required for the amd64 and intel 64 platforms. as the chips are backwards compatable to the 16 bit days of the chip. there are significant reasons why you would want ot bypass those steps and go to a straight 64 bit startup. (flat memory model being one of the largest)

EFI also brings several other Niceties. RAID, SCSI initialized before the OS takes over. so none of that f6 brouhaha.

But unless something changes at CES there is currently no MOBO's based on the UEFI Spec on the market.

Larry, expect a longer reply to that statement after I get home to my materials. But I do have to ask, about which reiserFS do you want to compare, 3 is almost comparible. 4 is more compariable to ntfs with parts of winfs in the fs itself. (iow with 4 you can use the FS as the datastore itself instead of relying on running a rdbs on top of a fs, this is true for certain types of data, something that currently isn't feasable with ntfs)

Douglas H

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

LarryOsterman wrote:

W3bbo wrote:What with the Hans Resier trial and him having to sell his company and product to fund his defence council, why doesn't Microsoft buy it whilst it's going?

What does ResierFS bring to the table that NTFS doesn't already have?

After a quick search, NTFS sure looks better than ReiserFS, but RFS4 does offer Tailpacking to reduce fragmentation and online volume size changing.

Other than that, NTFS sure looks like a winner.

What about IRIX's filesystem, XFS?

n4cer

W3bbo wrote:

LarryOsterman wrote:

W3bbo wrote: What with the Hans Resier trial and him having to sell his company and product to fund his defence council, why doesn't Microsoft buy it whilst it's going?

What does ResierFS bring to the table that NTFS doesn't already have?

After a quick search, NTFS sure looks better than ReiserFS, but RFS4 does offer Tailpacking to reduce fragmentation and online volume size changing.

Other than that, NTFS sure looks like a winner.

What about IRIX's filesystem, XFS?