UDF as filesystem

[Jedi-to-be]

UDF is a super-puper replacement for FAT/NTFS
it can be used for Flash/Hard Drives very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format

[EmuandCo]

No OS uses UDF as format for flash drives, but be need it badly for many optical mediums like DVDs.

[Jedi-to-be]

Nope, Windows Vista, Seven, 8 can format and use volume as UDF

[Jedi-to-be]

More over, Linux has excellent support for UDF
UDF is an open format, no patents are present.

It is REALLY uneversal format.

[Black_Fox]

That said, it ought to be also said that only DVDs use it, nobody else does it widely.

[Jedi-to-be]

So PRO's of UDF
1. It has support of almost every possible OS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... patibility
1.a Windows Vista, 7, 8 - have full support of formatting/using read/write of flash/hard drives
2. It is open vendor-neutral file system. It has no patents covering it.
3. It has several diffirent opensource implementations.
4. It has good performance.
5. Since it was initially developed for optical media it is reliable and resistant to possible corruptions.
6. It is well docuneted and standardized/.
7. It is much better in comparison with FAT12/16/32 and even exFAT and NTFS (in specific situations).
8. I has no problems with Character sets and encodings.

[vicmarcal]

As I said in the Patch report:
A nice comparative chart:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/es-es/library ... 85%29.aspx

Seems that UDF is way better than FAT32, (shares same inconvenients but UDF has some improvements), but it doesnt reach NTFS quality:
-No mount points.
-Just 127 UNICODE file length.
-No file Owner track
-No access control list...
-No user level disk space
-No Journaling

But seems better than Fat32, at least for the >4GB files support, the only problem is the File length(UDF just lets 127 unicode length while Fat32 lets 255)
Supporting UDF would be really nice..

[Jedi-to-be]

-Just 127 UNICODE file length. - this is wrong/

[elhoir]

what´s the status of the FullFat library import?
IIRC its better than native FAT??? filesystem.....

2.0.0 is out now

[Black_Fox]

http://code.google.com/p/fullfat/ - 2.0.0 RTM was indeed released on March, 2012.

As for UDF, I didn't mean to say that nobody supports it. I wanted to say, how many times have you seen it in real life?
Specs are sufficient (via wiki): file length 255 Unicode characters except NUL, path length 1023 Unicode characters except NUL, 16 EB file size, 8 TB volume size. Anyone cares to explain how am I going to fit near-limit file on a volume size that is 2,000,000 times smaller? Which of these two values is wrong?

@Jedi-to-be: I agree with you that UDF is better than FAT16/32, that however applies also for ext3, ext4, btrfs, NTFS, exFAT, ReiserFS, ZFS etc. that in the statistics mentioned above are also superior to UDF. These all are also journaling FSs and they can also be used on removable media as well. All of these FSs are used more often (even more with the decrease in optical media usage). So what's the point in implementing patent-free UDF, if there's more use for implementing patent-free ext*?

[oswetto]

I created patch for update fullfat to 2.0 but is closed in won't fix because we are not using Fullfat any longer
See http://jira.reactos.org/browse/CORE-6778

[Jedi-to-be]

ext3, ext4, btrfs, NTFS, exFAT, ReiserFS, ZFS - are not supported by majority of OS


Only UDF has such great cross-compatibility.

[Black_Fox]

NTFS is supported by majority of OS - WIndows + Linux out of the box. OS X with 3rd-party addition.
Can you please point me in any link where people use UDF on non-optical media, not only support it? I don't say it's wrong to add UDF support to ROS, it just seems to me that there are more Linux desktop users in the world than UDF users.

[Jedi-to-be]

About NTFS-3g.
1) It is still under development
2)

Benchmarks show that the driver's performance via FUSE is comparable to that of other filesystems' drivers in-kernel,[6] provided that the CPU is powerful enough. On embedded or old systems, the high processor usage can severely limit performance.[7] Current versions often show 100% CPU utilization on dealing with big files on fragmented NTFS file systems.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS-3G
3) UDF is much easier to implement than NTFS fo several reasons. NTFS is closed and proprietary standart. UDF is fully open and much popular standard, it even has support of a lot of hardware and embedded solutions, while NTFS does NOT. FUSE - is too complex thing itself, and can help introduce additional bugs and problems into ReactOS and so on....
4) Why should we be the last who switch to UDF as general FS and not the first? I want us to be pioneers!
5) Do you want people using UDF not for optical media? Lol, Google knows that people https://www.google.ru/search?ie=UTF-8&q ... sh%20drive

[vicmarcal]

Talking about FS adoption right now, is somekind useless.
There are big problems to fix first in CC to support any FS properly.
After that, we can begin discussing about adopting an already created Ntfs4-3g or Ext9 FS or creating one from scratch as UDF

[ external image ]