New File Systems?

NTSF is getting a bit old. Plus, it has annoying limits on the number of characters and types of characters that can be used to name a file. Sure it is a great improvement from the 8.3 system of the FAT series, but still...

I guess I would like to enquire whether there is any new file system on the horizon that could gradually displace NTFS. An internet search did not really yield any info on this. So is there something in the offing?

Note: I do mean filesystems for Windows rather than other operating systems.

 

Yes. WinFS.

 

WinFS was never intended to replace NTFS, but rather it was a layer on top of NTFS.

http://www.ntfs.com/winfs_arch.htm

I would like them to improve on NTFS's dynamic volumes, where whole volumes can be moved from disk to disk, like files. That would take out one step in server redundancy. Of course, you can do this in Unix, but it is such a pain in the rear to do in Windows. Like if you have to take down a whole RAID array, then well, you gotta take down that server. I like to be able to move that whole volume into another array and go from there.

While a VM provides this similar redundancy , somethings are not fit for VMs. Databases come to mind.

 

Then its name is very misleading.

Win = Windows
FS = File System

 

We are having a semi discussion about WinFS on the Windows 7 thread. It doesn't really touch on the future of file systems. I can see the future of file systems being a database though. Partitions are already headed that way. I can see the whole file system maybe heading that way eventually. Maybe though.

 

That would be awesome, in my opinion. Databases are undoubtedly the best way to store data that needs to be easily searchable and organized.

 

Usually, FS = file system... but in this case, FS = Future Storage, as the Wikipedia article says.

It's a 255-character limit on filename length... not something I bump into every day.

There's a reason filesystems aren't updated all that often. NTFS does the job fine. Still, I'm sure there are some things that could be improved. It's really not the most pressing thing for most users though. IMO, there are more people complaining that NTFS is "old" or saying "where's WinFS?" than there are people who have a realistic idea of what real-world benefits a newer filesystem would actually bring.

 

Yes, I know, but as I said, it's misleading, isn't it? (In acronym form at least.)

 

Yes, I agree.

 

how long do your filenames get? lol 255 is alot already, maybe it should be double? never crossed my mind

 

Agreed. 255 is plenty, in my opinion, but why there's a limit at all is beyond me.

 

NTFS is **** good and IMO doesn't need to be replaced. And as i'm planning to get an SSD drive in my next notebook along with Windows 7 which Microsoft is optimizing for SSDs; that's a good sign that NTFS would be here for some time...which is a good thing IMO because I see nothing wrong w/ it...it works and it's not broken in any way!

 

I'm guessing they got the limit from 2^8. Maybe that isn't too obvious to some people. Better than the 8.3 MSDOS days. NTFS, while is old, has been updated several times. I think we are at NTFS 6.0 already??

 

2⁸ = 256, not 255.

 

Yes, but they always subtract 1 from the resultant number when limits are determined.

I have no doubt that the limit stems from 2^8 issue, but there are file systems (not mainstream) that have no limits on that whatsoever. Also NTFS has a total path length limit, though that is very large - 32767 characters. Still, that is actually a regression from FAT-32, which had no limits on path length, though in practice this is unlikely to come up.

As to whether I run into the 255 character limit, yes I do and I do so daily. Most filenames I create myself do not bump into the limit, but many websites I try to archive have longer save names than that. Yes, I can just rename them with shorter names, but it is an annoyance and an inconveniance. Still, it does definitely beat the 8.3 naming system of DOS-fame...

In short, yes, NTFS is a good file system and its limits are not that bad and a vast improvement over the past, but I am still interested if there is something new and better on the horizon. After all, technology usually does not stay stagnant in the field of computing!

 

This is interesting - how would a database-based file system work?

 

you don't subtract 1 .. lol

the range is from 0 to 255, which is a total of 256 symbols

there's a lot assosiated with 256. First computers were made to use 8 bits, which means that they could count form 0 to 255, then ASCII table was developed with 256 symbols, then compatibility was kept with generations computers afterwards ..

 

NTFS has a lot of problems compared with other file systems.
The biggest, of course, is fragmentation, something many other file systems have fixed long ago. Second is the disk checking(chkdsk) needing to be used at times.
It could use an update, then it would be pretty good.

 

I'm picturing, rather than a hierarchical database like what we have now (tree diagram), a database one. I'm not sure how to explain it, cause it wasn't my idea

I copied the quote from a coworker. It should natural. An evolution from a hierarchical structure to a database structure. Like moving your numbers from a list to a spreadsheet. Or moving your contact records from outlook to Access. I was going to make up some bullcrap story about cloud computing and data formats, but that sounded wrong.