Is ROS going towards OSS file system rather than NTFS?

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

mjs
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:03 pm

Post by mjs » Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:20 pm

However, you should implement an existing open-source FS first because the sources are available and well-tested. Not all open-source FS should be implemented - only a single one that supports almost all features of NTFS (to be able to test the full Win32 FS API) - and I believe the only one that matches these requirements is ReiseFS 4.

One feature that is - IMHO - implemented in ReiserFS 4 only are multiple data streams for a single file.

Regards,
Mark

Dr. Fred
Developer
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:09 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Post by Dr. Fred » Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:49 pm

Why shouldn't ros support all possible file systems ?
SirTalon wrote:ReiserFS 4 is an atomic filesystem (much better than journaling, because only 1 write is done, and its either done completely, or not at all so no problems arise).
How does that work ? I looked at wikipedia and searched the internet, but I couldn't find a explaination.

reub2000
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: Evanston, IL, US

Post by reub2000 » Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:27 pm

I dual-boot linux and windows. One of my main gripes about this setup is that the only filesystem they can both write to is fat32. If I could replace windows with reactos, and it supported ext3 or other linux filesysytems, that would be great.

mjs
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:03 pm

Post by mjs » Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:30 am

Dr. Fred wrote:Why shouldn't ros support all possible file systems ?
Because the developers should be able to finish the FS implementation as fast as possible and therefore can concentrate on the core ASAP.

EDIT: When most of the work at the core is finished, there is no argument against more file systems. The implementation should just be a prove of concept and has the additional advantage that it's a modern FS and all Win32 FS APIs can be implemented and tested.

Regards,
Mark

Phalanx
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by Phalanx » Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:10 am

Also having only a few main FS will help with support latter down the line. If you have to many different ones, keeping up to track with them all can cause problems (and more bugs).

SirTalon
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:53 pm

Post by SirTalon » Sun Feb 20, 2005 5:17 am

How does that work ? I looked at wikipedia and searched the internet, but I couldn't find a explaination.
Here is Namesys's (and Reiser4's) main site: http://www.namesys.com

The documentation on the atomic part is here (it also talks about all other types of filesystems too): http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html#atomic_fs

(apparently Reiser4 is JUST Reiser4, not 'ReiserFS 4' like I said before)

There are also benchmarks on Namesys comparing Reiser4 to other filesystems (mostly Ext3).
"People do have a real life." -- w3seek

Guess that means I'm not a person :-D

rastilin
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 12:26 pm

Post by rastilin » Sun Feb 20, 2005 6:01 am

Personally I would love to see ReisierFS 4 implemented first. It seems to fast and reliable. We can implement NTFS further down the line to provide compatability.

MadRat
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:29 am
Contact:

Post by MadRat » Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:40 am

reub2000 wrote:I dual-boot linux and windows. One of my main gripes about this setup is that the only filesystem they can both write to is fat32. If I could replace windows with reactos, and it supported ext3 or other linux filesysytems, that would be great.
My original question played devil's advocate. I would like the same as what you suggest here, to be able to freely jump back and forth using the same data partition.
*************************************
Go Huskers!

IJs
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:28 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by IJs » Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:31 am

NTFS (and FAT32) are important for Windows compatability but it would be really nice to see support for some good opensource filesystems as well (ReiserFS, etc).
Developer Multi Theft Auto multiplayer hack for GTA3/GTA:VC.

Image
Image

Dr. Fred
Developer
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:09 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Post by Dr. Fred » Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:18 pm

SirTalon wrote:[Here is Namesys's (and Reiser4's) main site: http://www.namesys.com
I read it and I have to say you're right that's really the best filesystem out there.

mjs
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:03 pm

Post by mjs » Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:12 pm

IJs wrote:NTFS (and FAT32) are important for Windows compatability but it would be really nice to see support for some good opensource filesystems as well (ReiserFS, etc).
Yes you're right. But an opensource FS should be implemented before NTFS because NTFS is hardly documented and quite difficult to implement. Just implement an opensource FS that supports all NTFS features to be able to test all FS APIs first. Then NTFS should be implemented ASAP (IMHO).

Regards,
Mark

cyborg
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:27 pm

Post by cyborg » Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:41 pm

NTFS is best
This is worse than a lie. From outside, all NTFS partitions look like, they would be the same, but its not true. NTFS is a crap. I tried to hack very low level and saw a lot of mess, major changes between NTFS subsystems. I heard about problems using NTFS partitions created with another Windows which is running currently. So Win NT has some troubles with XP NTFS and so on.

The hard links are somewhat undocumented. I have tools for it and use them. Still, I dont like it.
Ext2 has problems when unmounting. NTFS and FAT have not
thats not true. not unmounted FAT systems sometimes lose a lot of data. Everybody who lost his ntloader on the Windows partition already once, knows that very well.
It is just because Windows makes mounting "invisible" (I must admit, I dont know about Windows-mounting, maybe it even doesnt mount at all?) so it looks like FAT has no problems. The truth is, I already lost partitions settings only because of MINOR system crashes.
Sometimes files which are in read-only mode are lost on the harddisk. like ntloader, like registry, like some systemfiles. Then, windows is broken.

In Linux I had a lot of hard crashes when I installed some developer Hacks in the kernel, used some ugly software to check some things.

I lost data too. But never readonly data. Most of the data was recovered very well. I always used ext2/ext3, never something else under linux. Never ever had problems. Even with unmounted ext2/3 drives.
only problems ever occured was because of wrong installed fschk under early gentoo stages. but i was a noob then, and didnt try to save my box, just reinstalled linux.

after using linux for a long time, i still stick to win32 because of some programs wine doesnt support. but thats all. the idea of having a "/" filesystem where everything is mounted beneath is great.

What I hope in ReactOS is:
* fully support for FAT32
* at least read support for NTFS and its various subsystems
* fully support for ext3. really.
* read/write support for ReiserFS 3 and 4, BSD FSes

support for slash-style filenames too.
maybe cloak "C:\" as "/win/c" and so on.


I think before NTFS support is implemented more deeply, which is a load of work i think, they should support FAT32 and ext3 and make the kernel more usable.
And: Networking is much much more important, as is fully compatibility to WindowsNT or XP.

roytam
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:02 pm

Post by roytam » Sun Feb 20, 2005 5:45 pm

cyborg wrote: What I hope in ReactOS is:
* fully support for FAT32
* at least read support for NTFS and its various subsystems
* fully support for ext3. really.
* read/write support for ReiserFS 3 and 4, BSD FSes

support for slash-style filenames too.
maybe cloak "C:" as "/win/c" and so on.


I think before NTFS support is implemented more deeply, which is a load of work i think, they should support FAT32 and ext3 and make the kernel more usable.
And: Networking is much much more important, as is fully compatibility to WindowsNT or XP.
I think slash-style path should be a bit more like the *nix one I.E. "C:" == "/mnt/c"

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd » Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:17 pm

cyborg wrote:
NTFS is best
This is worse than a lie. From outside, all NTFS partitions look like, they would be the same, but its not true. NTFS is a crap. I tried to hack very low level and saw a lot of mess, major changes between NTFS subsystems. I heard about problems using NTFS partitions created with another Windows which is running currently. So Win NT has some troubles with XP NTFS and so on.
What I think you're failing to understand is that NTFS gets updated with each release of windows. NT4's NTFS, for example, underwent a significant change between SP1 and SP6a. By 6a NTFS could support disk quotas and other necessary features (tho there were no way to use those features). Between NTFS 4 (NT4) and NTFS 5 (2000) the system had been significantly changed again adding support for things like DFS and other features I can't remember right now. I'm sure NTFS 5.1-2 (XP/2003) have some feature changes too. The only problems I've had is not being able to access 2000 NTFS partitions from NT4 pre-SP6a. XP can easily access previous versions. 2000 recognizes XP NTFS (as I have 1 drive formatted from 2000 and the drive XP sits on was formatted by XP). Not sure if NT4 6a can recognize XP drives or not.

So saying that NT4 has trouble reading XP drives should be assumed.

It really doesn't matter which file system is picked so long as the network permissions are compatible with Windows/NTFS. Ultimately this comes down to the 6 basic permissions NTFS has

F-full ownership
O-ability to change ownership
R-read (list)
X-execute (run or open)
D-delete
W-append and modify
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

A-v-S
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: BAEK CITY (Beek, Limburg, The Netherlands, Europe, Earth)
Contact:

Post by A-v-S » Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:45 am

I have never tried NT4.0, but used 2000 and XP, they can read each other NTFS parititions,
XP can read Longhorn NTFS, but Partition Magic doesn't reconise Longhorn NTFS.
So something is changed but it can still be used by XP.

And I think NTFS should be supported to be able to switch.
"you laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same"

http://www.il.fontys.nl/~andre

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DotBot [Crawler] and 2 guests