4 ms·
All the next gen, copy on write filesystems have checksums: NTFS+ (ReFS) has it, ext4+ (btrfs) has it, but HPFS++ (APFS) has not. Bummer. At least optional che
by zeotroph 7y ago
All the next gen, copy on write filesystems have checksums: NTFS+ (ReFS) has it, ext4+ (btrfs) has it, but HPFS++ (APFS) has not. Bummer.
At least optional checksums should be supported, then watchOS does not waste time with it but a user with 10k+ mac workstation who might still uses spinning rust for bulk data storage is SOL.
- floatboth 7y ago> NTFS+ (ReFS), ext4+ (btrfs) That's.. an extremely confusing way to put it. ReFS and btrfs are from-scratch new FSes.
- privateSFacct 7y agois ext4+ really shipping in volume? I checked RHEL, not the default. Is NTFS+ the default on Windows 10 / Windows Server 2016 or 2019? APFS is shipping today in quantity / as default and I believe they back migrated literally millions of devices to it something like a year ago. I don't understand the user use case with a 10K workstation and no raid (ie, with parity etc) + SSD with internal error correction. So this is a $10K workstation with magnetic disks and no other error correcting option / layer? Why do this?
- zeotroph 7y agoSLES (Suse) is going all in with btrfs, it is no ZFS but better than the equivalent RH solution of offering an LVM or other blocklevel layer of checksums. Not to mention all the ..BSD or ZfsOnLinux based storage solutions. I am not denying that APFS is a good FS, but not even having the option of checksums given its contemporaries was clearly a political and financial decision to benefit Apple and not its users. Pointing to an opaque mix of raid (and indeed, raid10 is not even enough), super-reliable SSDs and the full stack control doesn't make the lack of checksums any better.
- jplayer01 7y agoI don't really understand what the deal is with ReFS. Is this ever intended to reach normal consumers or are they happy with NTFS?