Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Fri 30th Jun 2006 17:00 UTC, submitted by Rahul
A series of patches has been proposed on the Linux kernel mailing list earlier by a team of engineers from Red Hat, ClusterFS, IBM, and Bull to extend the Ext3 filesystem, adding support for very large filesystems. After a long discussion, the developers came forward with a plan to roll these changes into a new version: Ext4. LWN covered the changes as well as the arguments put forward for a new filesystem a few weeks back.
Permalink for comment 139852
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-05-15
BeOS Goodpoint: journal base FS (I use BeOS 4.5 and 5.0 Personal Edition). Comparing with Windows 9x, Me and NT4 before Win 2000, BFS is very attractive to me at that moment.
BeOS is database like FS. Find and sort of file like as Database.
Bad Point: Lack of any security measure: UNIX like permission and ACL capacity.
In my opinions, FAT16 and FAT32 is so problematic FS if improper shutdown and hang computer causing data inconsistent, I wait to see whether have cross-link, lost cluster (delete lost cluster of recovering lost file in fileXXX and DIRXXXX). This is very annoying and easily lost of important data.
Under FAT16, Two copy of FAT tables (metadata)do not self-recovery if one copy FAT table occur error (user does not know one of FAT tables gone wrong and FAT turn to up backup copy of FAT table) except you run scandisk or norton disk dockor like to find out and fix problem to sync them again. But I don't sure FAT32 to have this problem.
No file permission and ACL
NTFS good point:
very stable - journal based FS
support UNICODE in filename native. It is useful for non-english language users such as Chinese, Japaneses, Korean character (I am Chinese).
Built in permission and ACL (also bad point, user require pay more to buy professional edition windows)
Bad point: 4KB default cluster size for NTFS is too small for today hard disk. Large cluster size can improve I/O performance and lower fragmentation.
Defragmenter can not defrag bigger than 4K cluster size. It is quite Awesome to me...
UFS2 is FreeBSD FS (This is my hobby OS). UFS2 is a new design (not compatible with UFS1) but share some codes with UFS1. It is 64-bit FS and support ACL natively. UFS2 (include UFS1) is not journal based FS but use different approach to keep metadata consistent if encount power failure or OS crush - SOFTUPDATES.
Good point: SOFTUPDATES allow write most of data to harddisk in async. mode and few in sync mode. It improves FS performance but do not hurt data consistent after power failure and OS failure.
Bad point: Running fsck after OS crush and power failure is required.
Not support UNICODE.