Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An implementation of the NTFS filesystem in a Rust crate

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: An implementation of the NTFS filesystem in a Rust crate

#31

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

loeg wrote: post #22
Cu3PO42 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ext4 remains the default for a lot of distros and probably most end users, but other options are common as well. openSUSE and Fedora now default to btrfs, RHEL defaults to XFS.

XFS also has not changed much in the past 10-20 years :-).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS lists what I would call significant improvements, in particular,

> Linux kernel 4.8 in August 2016 added a new feature, "reverse mapping". This is the foundation for a large set of planned features: snapshots, copy-on-write (COW) data, data deduplication, reflink copies, online data and metadata scrubbing, highly accurate reporting of data loss or bad sectors, and significantly improved reconstruction of damaged or corrupted filesystems. This work required changes to XFS's on-disk format.

Re: An implementation of the NTFS filesystem in a Rust crate

#32

Post by hardwaresofton »

kcb wrote: post #29
distract8901 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bet is that btrfs will replace ext4 in the nearish future. It's the default for Arch, which also comes default with filesystem snapshots before any system updates. It's pretty nice. I think it also supports some flavor of volumes or virtual partitions, but I don't have any real use for that kind of thing. The snapshots are really good though. Very fast and don't take up a ton of space, somehow.

Never using btrfs no matter how default it comes. Only filesystem I've had data loss with, 2 district occasions.

Would you mind noting how recent the data loss was?

Re: An implementation of the NTFS filesystem in a Rust crate

#33

Post by Chmouel »

kcb wrote: post #29
distract8901 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bet is that btrfs will replace ext4 in the nearish future. It's the default for Arch, which also comes default with filesystem snapshots before any system updates. It's pretty nice. I think it also supports some flavor of volumes or virtual partitions, but I don't have any real use for that kind of thing. The snapshots are really good though. Very fast and don't take up a ton of space, somehow.

Never using btrfs no matter how default it comes. Only filesystem I've had data loss with, 2 district occasions.

I recently had a bit of a data hiccup on my desktop laptop, where I'm using Btrfs with LVM encryption. What's weird is that I started getting these random reboots out of the blue, with no error messages to explain what was going on. I was scratching my head for a while, thinking it might be a hardware issue.

Then, in frustration, I rebooted into my Windows partition, which I rarely ever use. to see if I could back up my stuff and figure out why I wasn't having the same reboot problems in Windows.

After trying a bunch of Btrfs repair commands over a bootable usb disk I found online, I hit a wall with some errors that couldn't be fixed. So, I threw in the towel and reinstalled my system with ext4. It's been running smoothly for three weeks now with no more error headaches.

Could not find the logs of the errors anymore unfortunately to report.

Re: An implementation of the NTFS filesystem in a Rust crate

#34

Post by rsaxvc »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #13
andy_xor_andrew wrote: post #10

Question for the experts! Has NTFS changed much in... 20 years? Linux filesystems seem to be evolving all the time (try to install any new distro today and check out how many filesystems you can pick from the dropdown...) Apple replaced one filesystem with another in just the past few years, with apparently some very advanced new features. But NTFS is just... NTFS? Does NTFS today look anything like how it looked in…

> Linux filesystems seem to be evolving all the time (try to install any new distro today and check out how many filesystems you can pick from the dropdown...) This sounds like evolution of options more than evolution of existing file systems Is ext4 still not most popular for most end users? Curious how much ext4 has changed vs NTFS past... ~20 years (ext4 went stable 2008 apparently)

Ext4 has changed their binary format twice with only forward compatibility. Mounting a new, large ext4 partition often won't work on old machines.

Source: had to patch yaboot(PowerPC Mac bootloader) to update ext4 to boot with /boot on ext4.

Re: An implementation of the NTFS filesystem in a Rust crate

#35

Post by electroly »

gecko wrote: post #18
andy_xor_andrew wrote: post #10

Question for the experts! Has NTFS changed much in... 20 years? Linux filesystems seem to be evolving all the time (try to install any new distro today and check out how many filesystems you can pick from the dropdown...) Apple replaced one filesystem with another in just the past few years, with apparently some very advanced new features. But NTFS is just... NTFS? Does NTFS today look anything like how it looked in…

It hasn't changed radically, but it has changed. Wikipedia actually has a nice write-up if you want the details, but support for symbolic links, transactions, and partition resizing are all things that have materially improved my life in the last ~5-10 years.

All of those features are over 10 years old. Time moves fast. Windows 7 was 14 years ago.

Re: An implementation of the NTFS filesystem in a Rust crate

#36

Post by electroly »

denkmoon wrote: post #30
mc32 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s ReFS for windows. Don’t forget Apple was stuck with one barely functioning FS (HFS+) for decades.

Is ReFS real? Like does anyone really use it outside of Microsoft's labs?

The Windows 11 feature "Dev Drive" uses ReFS.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dev-drive/

Re: An implementation of the NTFS filesystem in a Rust crate

#37

Post by snapplebobapple »

kcb wrote: post #29
distract8901 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bet is that btrfs will replace ext4 in the nearish future. It's the default for Arch, which also comes default with filesystem snapshots before any system updates. It's pretty nice. I think it also supports some flavor of volumes or virtual partitions, but I don't have any real use for that kind of thing. The snapshots are really good though. Very fast and don't take up a ton of space, somehow.

Never using btrfs no matter how default it comes. Only filesystem I've had data loss with, 2 district occasions.

Me too, also on two distinct occasions. It kept going read only on a third distinct occasion and i copied my stuff off and switched to zfs and haven't looked back. I am hoping bcachefs provides a compelling option in the next decade to switch off zfs but its a tall hill to climb

Re: An implementation of the NTFS filesystem in a Rust crate

#38

Post by m463 »

andy_xor_andrew wrote: post #10

Question for the experts! Has NTFS changed much in... 20 years? Linux filesystems seem to be evolving all the time (try to install any new distro today and check out how many filesystems you can pick from the dropdown...) Apple replaced one filesystem with another in just the past few years, with apparently some very advanced new features. But NTFS is just... NTFS? Does NTFS today look anything like how it looked in…

linux ntfs support seems sort of hit or miss.

For example, I have a dual-boot arch/win system with 2 ntfs partitions and a with a recent update the linux kernel ntfs driver can't mount the filesystems, have to fall back to the fuse implementation.

It also didn't seem to be able to do things like set system flags hsra, but I found a way with the fuse implementation.

Re: An implementation of the NTFS filesystem in a Rust crate

#39

Post by Arrath »

electroly wrote: post #35
gecko wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It hasn't changed radically, but it has changed. Wikipedia actually has a nice write-up if you want the details, but support for symbolic links, transactions, and partition resizing are all things that have materially improved my life in the last ~5-10 years.

All of those features are over 10 years old. Time moves fast. Windows 7 was 14 years ago.

> Windows 7 was 14 years ago.

Surely you lie..

Re: An implementation of the NTFS filesystem in a Rust crate

#40

Post by keep_reading »

loeg wrote: post #22
Cu3PO42 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ext4 remains the default for a lot of distros and probably most end users, but other options are common as well. openSUSE and Fedora now default to btrfs, RHEL defaults to XFS.

XFS also has not changed much in the past 10-20 years :-).

Wow you've missed so much. It's gone from "only fast with huge files" to being one of the most performant and capable filesystems in existence
Post reply on HN