Talk:List of file systems
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Systems||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Hadoop still under development
- 2 more missing file systems
- 3 HP Clustered File System?
- 4 Organizing Distributed FSs
- 5 Isn't Andrew File System (AFS) fault tolerant ?
- 6 List disk encryption systems here?
- 7 FUSE variants
- 8 Mnesia removed
- 9 Exanet was purchased by Dell on Feb 2011
- 10 Is Hashcache a file system?
Hadoop still under development
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 220.127.116.11 (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
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. 18.104.22.168 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
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?
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)
- HP Clustered File System (PSFS) from HP focus on exporting to clients over CIFS or NFS. Available for Linux and Windows. Symmetric.
Organizing Distributed FSs
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 22.214.171.124 (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 ?
As far as I can tell, AFS clients can fail over to another server automatically. Why is it then not listed as "fault tolerant" ?
- 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?
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.
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)