Talk:List of file systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Systems.
 

Hadoop still under development[edit]

Does it make sense to still call HDFS under development? The project now claims stable release to be 1.0.4 and HDFS is widely popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.34 (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to the main table; not sure about the status of the others or if it makes sense to have separate lists. -- Beland (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

more missing file systems[edit]

I note that the following appear to be missing (from memory, this list): CP/M-80, Flex, mini-FLEX, FLEX9, Uniflex, OS-9, Hemenway OS-68 file system, Smoke Signal Systems (SSB-DOS), and of course many others even more obscure from the wild and wooly days of the first 8-bit CPUs. If WP is to have completeish coverage of this subject, these should not be neglected. 67.86.175.54 04:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with this post. What is the point of not having these lesser-known file system formats? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hsleep (talkcontribs) 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Guy Harris 07:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also missing is Os used by the Apples Newton MessagePad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwaisberg (talkcontribs) 08:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

missing: exanodes by seanodes? (spelling?) HPC realm useless: starfish was never released publicly and has changed into an internet/media content dist. fs that is private.

I added Flex machine (of the many Flexes mentioned), OS-9, and Newton as requested above. I couldn't find article on the other items mentioned, so someone who is interested will need to find some sources and add material. -- Beland (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

HP Clustered File System?[edit]

I removed the following entry since I couldn't find any more information about it. Is it a duplicate of PolyServe file system which also is called PSFS? --JerkerNyberg 10:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I found some web pages that make it look like they are the same; I added a note to the article with a citaton. -- Beland (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Organizing Distributed FSs[edit]

I think that the criteria for the 4 distributed file system sections is rather not well thought out. Fault Tolerance and parallelism are features, but they do not seem to be so important for organizing. One strong reason is that most of the distributed systems offer some level of each. The hard part is figuring out where to draw the line, read-write distinctions (as can be seen in the AFS comment below), stripping... Another reason is that many seem to be in development still and plan on offering these features so they will likely change over time.

My suggestion might be to choose different high level criteria. I feel that key value filesystems vs traditional might be a start. Also, perhaps separating filesystems which are really just application libraries versus supported by the OSes normal file APIs might be another good separation? These might not be ideal, but I feel the current situation does not help very much for someone trying to research filesystems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.99.237 (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to agree. this needs a few different modifiers to sort by. WAN vs local? High perf vs ?? feature set? The current layout makes no sense.

I agree that the current organization is confusing.
Why is Tahoe-LAFS in both the "Distributed fault-tolerant file system" and the "Distributed parallel fault-tolerant file system" sections?
Why is the "N-way redundant file system" mentioned in the "Distributed parallel file system" section not in the "Distributed parallel fault-tolerant file system" section?
A criteria I wish this article had (but perhaps I'm not the typical reader) is file systems designed to be geographically distributed across multiple cities with high-latency links, vs. file systems that assume all the data is stored in a single building with low-latency links. --DavidCary (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Andrew File System (AFS) fault tolerant ?[edit]

As far as I can tell, AFS clients can fail over to another server automatically. Why is it then not listed as "fault tolerant" ?

Sorry that I don't have a reference, but the G should be able to help you out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.6.100 (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Both NFS and AFS may run with several read-only servers with automatic fail over. But read/write operation with multiple servers or automatic failover is trickier and is as far as I know not built into AFS. Please correct me if I am wrong here. --JerkerNyberg (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

List disk encryption systems here?[edit]

Disk encryption systems do not organize files but use other file systems for that purpose so IMHO there's no reason for them to be listed here. --StenSoft (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed them. --JerkerNyberg (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, but some encryption systems do "organize" files. For example: truecrypt hides files within a file (which could be viewed as a block). Surely, this system does more than encryption.

FUSE variants[edit]

Why do we list FUSE, LUFS, etc. in this special-purpose FS's section? These aren't filesystems at all. These are just mechanisms for building FS's in userspace. While I can understand the reason for listing them in an FS article, it would be better (and clearer) for them to be in their own section as non-Filesystems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.81.169 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Mnesia removed[edit]

I removed Mnesia since it is a DB and I don't see other DBs listed here. If Mnesia is included, why not CouchDB, or Berkely DB? Again, perhaps a clearer focus would help for this page. Perhaps Key/Value filesystems should not even be on this page, perhaps they should be on a DB page? I don't think it would be appropriate to add gdbm to this list, so why should something similar but distributed by listed here as a filesystem? I know there is a lot of overlap between filesystems and databases, but pure databases are not listed here. One things that perhaps should be required to be on this page: file based (if record based, then why call it a file system, call it a DB). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.99.237 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Exanet was purchased by Dell on Feb 2011[edit]

ExaStore is now DSFS - Dell's Scalable File System. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.193.7 (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Updated; thanks! -- Beland (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is Hashcache a file system?[edit]

I can't figure out if HashCache [1][2] belongs on this list. Does it count as a file system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.249.74 (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The paper describes it as a storage engine for a cache; I assume it operates on top of a conventional disk filesystem. If so, then I would say no, HashCache is not itself a filesystem. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)