2 ms·
not parent, but - ext3 is improved ext2 which is improved minix fs which is improved fat, and all use the 'traditional' static-map-of-blocks approach, with gra
by cat199 9y ago
not parent, but -
ext3 is improved ext2 which is improved minix fs which is improved fat, and all use the 'traditional' static-map-of-blocks approach, with gradual incremental improvements on top of this.. so the general technology 'family' is decades old even if any one implementation is not..
zfs/btrfs are log-structured, which wasn't really feasible from a hardware/performance standpoint until much later (see also LFS), and so represent implementations from a later 'generation' of technologies
- ryao 9y agoZFS and btrfs are not log structured, but CoW. There are some aspects of ZFS like ZIL and L2ARC that are essentially log structured, but the filesystem itself is not a log structured filesystem. Using CoW in storage is an idea that occurred after in-place and log structured filesystems had been made as far as I know though.
- aidenn0 9y agoI'll give you ext3, certainly as ext2 and ext3 share a codebase. They are wholly unrelated to FAT though, ext and minix both derive from the UFS/FFS branch of file system development which has little, if nothing in common with FAT filesystems. [edit] The original 8-bit FAT and FFS were both implemented at about the same time, if you consider FFS's beginning to be when I-nodes were moved into cylinder groups. If you consider the Unix "FS" to be the beginning, then it predates FAT by a lot. In any event inode and cluster-chain systems have fairly significant differences. Also, long-structured/CoW systems have been used as backends for databases for about 40 years now.