• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ReFS: Resilient File System. The Successor To NTFS

ViRGE said:
NTFS + Copy-On-Write + Metadata Checksums + File Checksums + Fully-Online Disk Checking. Combine it with Storage Spaces and you have one hell of a file system. I think the only thing Microsoft didn't throw in was ECC.😱

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/...-generation-file-system-for-windows-refs.aspx
Click to expand...

Between this and storage spaces, they're making some pretty epic changes.

I just hope they get us a proper WHS successor before too long. All the pieces are in place.
 
ultimatebob said:
Grr... how long am I going to have to wait for Symantec Ghost or Clonezilla to support this new file system format?
Click to expand...
Symantecs is (finally) working on the next GSS version for release this year, but I'm thinking this won't be built into it, and we will have to wait another 5 years.
 
Wyndru said:
Symantecs is (finally) working on the next GSS version for release this year, but I'm thinking this won't be built into it, and we will have to wait another 5 years.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I would fully blame Symantec. You know how MS gets about their proprietary FS layouts and code. Reverse-engineering that probably isn't the easiest thing.

Then again, I thought I recall Symantec getting a source-code license to Windows, in order to better integrate their products. So if that's true, then it should be a lot easier to support.
 
VirtualLarry said:
I don't know if I would fully blame Symantec. You know how MS gets about their proprietary FS layouts and code. Reverse-engineering that probably isn't the easiest thing.

Then again, I thought I recall Symantec getting a source-code license to Windows, in order to better integrate their products. So if that's true, then it should be a lot easier to support.
Click to expand...

I was just making a joke about their release time, Symantec has already taken the blame for this particular delay (Which was not related to MS). They apparently had issues with the team they hired for GSS and have recently did some restructuring. I've basically given up on them at this point, even the latest version of GSS has so many issues that they are well aware of, and they just issue sloppy workarounds on their knowledge base. They don't even let you download the latest updates unless you can prove to them that you have specifically the same issue as is addressed in the update.

But you are right about MS and their proprietary code and protecting it. I hope they don't hold this filesystem too close, although knowing them they probably have solutions in place for cloning and management, and will sell it to you for a low price!
 
BD2003 said:
So says the guy with the name that's casually missing a letter. 😉

Relax, bro.

ReFS is a good name.
Click to expand...

I don't get how my handle here has any correlation to what MS calls their next filesystem.

I'm relaxed, I just think reffs sounds dumb and figure most people will call it ree-ef-es or re-eff-es.

VirtualLarry said:
I don't know if I would fully blame Symantec. You know how MS gets about their proprietary FS layouts and code. Reverse-engineering that probably isn't the easiest thing.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Symantec pays a license fee to MS and signs many NDAs for access to their design docs and filesystem source code.
 
ultimatebob said:
It kinda reminds me of ReiserFS... the "killer" file system 🙂
Click to expand...
That's what I'm going with too. "RetardFS" never once entered my mind until Nothinman brought it up.

Anyhow, it's a perfectly fine name. It's no worse than NTFS, HFS+, or BTRFS.
 
ViRGE said:
That's what I'm going with too. "RetardFS" never once entered my mind until Nothinman brought it up.

Anyhow, it's a perfectly fine name. It's no worse than NTFS, HFS+, or BTRFS.
Click to expand...

NTFS and HFS+ are at least acronyms and can be expanded into something meaningful, BTRFS' name is a bad joke that no one gets.
 
very nice. I've been looking for a new FS to transition my server from ZFS (linux support is iffy, and FreeBSD annoys me). btrfs is taking a long time to become ready with this kind of functionality. if MS delivers on this, I'm gonna use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top