4 ms·
Why wouldn't they work on improving NTFS performance instead?
by jraph 2y ago
Why wouldn't they work on improving NTFS performance instead?
- chris_wot 2y agoBecause likely they aren’t a. allowed to, and/or b. have no file system code experience or understanding.
- chipdart 2y ago> Why wouldn't they work on improving NTFS performance instead? There are other old-school techniques which are far easier to implement and maintain, such as using RAM drives/partitions. Expensing 32GB of RAM is simpler than maintaining weird NTFS configurations. Splitting your project into submodules/subpackages also helps amortize the impact of long build times. You can run multiple builds in parallel and then have a last build task to aggregate the all. Everyone can live with builds that take 5 minutes instead of 3.
- pjc50 2y agoMuch of the cost is imposed by semantics and the security model; there's no silver bullet solution that can be imposed without turning it into a different filesystem with different semantics and/or on disk representation. At one point they planned to replace it with a database filesystem, but that was too complicated and abandoned. That was probably the end of replacement work on NTFS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS
- nullindividual 2y agoWinFS was never designed as a replacement as it rode on top of NTFS. It was a fancy SQL Server database that exposed files as .NET Objects for API interaction. Sans the API piece, think of it like storing blobs in SQL Server, just like SharePoint does. I was lucky enough to play around with beta 1. Not much you could do with it, though.
- TiredOfLife 2y agoEven Microsoft doesn't touch NTFS code (if they haven't lost it). All new file system features like new compression methods are implemented on layers above ntfs.