File Systems

mcwkm · Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:10 pm Post subject: File Systems

I really don't understand the need for different file systems to achieve the same task. I can understand the development of file systems which leads to newer versions. What I don't understand is why there is a need for so many different file systems to for hard drives. Can someone explain this for me?

LP-SolidRaven · Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:42 am Post subject:

Well, a file system has huge impact on performance of the computer. NTFS as we know it for example isn't all that efficient in terms of disk space it uses or performance in that matter.
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHe.....hmarks.htm
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p.....&num=1

But now to really get to the point: http://arstechnica.com/hardwar.....ystems.ars

Mac for example has one of the worst file systems in history (Well that is after FAT16 I guess, that one is uncontested in how messed up it is). Journalling is pretty much a standard requirement these days. Macs don't have it enabled by default.
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally.

Xtreme $niper · Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:36 pm Post subject:

LP-SolidRaven · Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:35 am Post subject:

ClickFanatic · Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:31 am Post subject:

Filesystems manage the data on your hard. A good filesystem keeps files organised in such a way that they can be accessed quickly and the risk of dataloss is minimised.
I bet there are more criteria for filesystems, though.
_________________
If you can read this, my post is on an alternating background.

spock · Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:04 am Post subject:

You can influence the performance of some servers just by changing to another filesystem. Filesystems all have different strong and weak points.
_________________
My new site

LP-SolidRaven · Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:02 pm Post subject:

ClickFanatic · Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:21 am Post subject:

That's exactly what I meant with "keeping files organised in such a way that they can be accessed quickly."

But you're right. I have never had significant fragmentation with ext2, which is commonly used on Linux, but I find myself defragmenting regularly with NTFS on Windows.
_________________
If you can read this, my post is on an alternating background.

mcwkm · Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:54 am Post subject:

ClickFanatic · Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:38 pm Post subject:

I used both ext2 and ext3. They both appear quite resistant to fragmentation, though.

I do not use Linux anymore these days, though, because it became too much trouble to manage my activities on two operating systems. So I am less aware of the new developments in that area.
_________________
If you can read this, my post is on an alternating background.

Xtreme $niper · Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:01 pm Post subject:

ClickFanatic · Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:53 am Post subject:

Xtreme $niper · Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:03 am Post subject:

I think everything is a matter of subjectivity, for the most part.

What use is benchmarking or number crunching when everybody in the end experiences something that tells the story in a completely different way? But by all means, if anyone would find some sort of actual comparison between the file systems, then sure I'd take a look.
_________________
Come visit Shattered Abstracts! (Photoblog!)

ClickFanatic · Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:30 am Post subject:

Xtreme $niper · Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:04 pm Post subject:

Well yeah I understand that, but in the end if the discussion is going to be about the file system and which operating system it is running under, then those factors need to be considered anyway.

I think HFS+ did fairly well on those tests, though it's a shame NTFS isn't included just to see a comparison.
_________________
Come visit Shattered Abstracts! (Photoblog!)

	Lifelesspeople.com Forum Index -> Techy Turf	All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2