Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft's ReFS File-System: Competitor To Btrfs?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Microsoft's ReFS File-System: Competitor To Btrfs?

    Phoronix: Microsoft's ReFS File-System: Competitor To Btrfs?

    Microsoft has released extensive details on their next-generation ReFS file-system to be introduced with Windows Server 8. How though does the file-system compare to Btrfs and the Linux file-systems?..

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA0NDA

  • #2
    I feel "meh" about filesystem advancements in linux. Seems like things are just getting stagnant and btrfs is pretty much going nowhere.

    I'd love to use linux for my NAS build but I'm probably going to end up with Solaris or one of its derivatives.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think I'll just bite the bullet and move to Btrfs after Ubuntu 12.04 is out. Btrfs holds a great promise, I only wish it's maturing faster.

      Comment


      • #4
        fsck?

        Originally posted by kobblestown View Post
        I think I'll just bite the bullet and move to Btrfs after Ubuntu 12.04 is out. Btrfs holds a great promise, I only wish it's maturing faster.
        does it have an error-correcting fsck yet? This has been a show-stopper for me. I don't see why they haven't fixed this yet.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kobblestown View Post
          I think I'll just bite the bullet and move to Btrfs after Ubuntu 12.04 is out. Btrfs holds a great promise, I only wish it's maturing faster.
          Remember that Btrfs is suitable only for testing purpose: while some people doesn't have trouble at all, you could experience data loss and other problems.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by garytr24 View Post
            does it have an error-correcting fsck yet? This has been a show-stopper for me. I don't see why they haven't fixed this yet.
            Honestly I think they're not doing that precisely to keep people like you from trying it out. I think they want to keep away all but the most hard-core users until they feel it's closer to being ready.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
              Honestly I think they're not doing that precisely to keep people like you from trying it out. I think they want to keep away all but the most hard-core users until they feel it's closer to being ready.
              Not sure what you mean... an FS for only kernel hackers? On the "user" rankings I'd say I'm pretty hard-core. In fact I ran BTRFS for about a year until my hard drive started getting bad sectors, i copied it over byte-by-byte to a new one, and the FS could no longer work properly, back to ext4.

              Still, even if that were the case, not sure why they'd have an interest in preventing people from using it. Maybe they don't want bug reports that will affect the direction of the design? I thought they were much further along than that.
              Last edited by garytr24; 01-17-2012, 12:45 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by garytr24 View Post
                Not sure what you mean... an FS for only kernel hackers? On the "user" rankings I'd say I'm pretty hard-core. In fact I ran BTRFS for about a year until my hard drive started getting bad sectors, i copied it over byte-by-byte to a new one, and the FS could no longer work properly, back to ext4.

                Still, even if that were the case, not sure why they'd have an interest in preventing people from using it. Maybe they don't want bug reports that will affect the direction of the design? I thought they were much further along than that.
                Last time I checked btrfs didn't have a stable disk format... not sure if that's still the case. If it is, they're probably trying to prevent mass-adoption so that they have the ability to change things where needed. If they had a fsck utility and people started using btrfs all over the place, they'd have backwards compatibility issues to take into consideration when changing the underlying FS. With a smaller user-base, they can make more changes without messing as many people up.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Veerappan View Post
                  Last time I checked btrfs didn't have a stable disk format... not sure if that's still the case. If it is, they're probably trying to prevent mass-adoption so that they have the ability to change things where needed. If they had a fsck utility and people started using btrfs all over the place, they'd have backwards compatibility issues to take into consideration when changing the underlying FS. With a smaller user-base, they can make more changes without messing as many people up.
                  Or, since only one person is working on the fsck program, it is taking longer than expected, or something else is taking his time.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Veerappan View Post
                    Last time I checked btrfs didn't have a stable disk format... not sure if that's still the case. If it is, they're probably trying to prevent mass-adoption so that they have the ability to change things where needed. If they had a fsck utility and people started using btrfs all over the place, they'd have backwards compatibility issues to take into consideration when changing the underlying FS. With a smaller user-base, they can make more changes without messing as many people up.
                    I'm not buying it, it would take quite a while for MASS-adoption since you'd need distro buy-in. The users that are willing to bend over backwards now to use BTRFS would prefer to migrate to a new version of the FS later than risk data-loss now.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by garytr24 View Post
                      I'm not buying it, it would take quite a while for MASS-adoption since you'd need distro buy-in. The users that are willing to bend over backwards now to use BTRFS would prefer to migrate to a new version of the FS later than risk data-loss now.
                      I think they already had distro buy-in (Fedora?) until that distro came to its senses and realized just how immature btrfs is.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by garytr24 View Post
                        In fact I ran BTRFS for about a year until my hard drive started getting bad sectors, i copied it over byte-by-byte to a new one, and the FS could no longer work properly, back to ext4.
                        If you think ext4 or any other filesystem that doesn't include error correction mechanisms will save you from bad sectors (= hardware failure), please dream on... :P

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JanC View Post
                          If you think ext4 or any other filesystem that doesn't include error correction mechanisms will save you from bad sectors (= hardware failure), please dream on... :P
                          It would have saved me from having to reformat the partition to make it usable again. Localized data-loss is to be expected obviously. Corrupt FS metadata is what I'm talking about, in my case it would hang my system if I tried to access the wrong file.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Linux users can really care less about a new Microsoft file-system
                            Couldn't care less. Big difference.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              All the data checksum'ng in the world isn't going to save your data if your hard drive decides to take a shit on you.

                              All the raid-like features in the world isn't going to protect your data from a 'rm -rf *'.

                              If you think you can depend on your FS, any FS, to protect your data your wasting money, time and effort... because you are doing it wrong.

                              Very wrong.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X