Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, Ryu Connor
riviera74 wrote:http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/bitrot-and-atomic-cows-inside-next-gen-filesystems/#image-1
After reading this article, I was wondering if anyone has had to deal with this and could suggest any solutions to these bitrotten files within Windows. It seems to me that NTFS was not designed to tackle this and I am not sure what can be done to correct it on any data files within Windows.
riviera74 wrote:It seems to me that NTFS was not designed to tackle this and I am not sure what can be done to correct it on any data files within Windows.
Krogoth wrote:Bitrot is mostly an issue with datacenter servers where you see frequent read/write cycles. For the vast majority of the people out there, memory issues are a larger problem with data integrity than file system issues.
SuperSpy wrote:Yeah with as cheap as RAM became in the last few years it's sad ECC hasn't caught on more. I think it's partly Intel's fault for using it to segregate the enterprise and consumer markets.
just brew it! wrote:Just a minor nit regarding the thread title... this really isn't a Windows-specific issue. Any OS which is using one of the commonly deployed current-gen (or older) file systems is vulnerable. Windows, Linux, OS X... all are at risk.
Kougar wrote:OS X at least has HFS+ now. Windows users are stuck with NTFS.
Kougar wrote:just brew it! wrote:Just a minor nit regarding the thread title... this really isn't a Windows-specific issue. Any OS which is using one of the commonly deployed current-gen (or older) file systems is vulnerable. Windows, Linux, OS X... all are at risk.
Yeah, but that said Linux has multiple 5th gen file systems users can use.
accord1999 wrote:What does HFS+ have that prevents bitrot?
just brew it! wrote:No major distros use btrfs by default (though SuSE 13.2, scheduled to be released in the fall, supposedly will). Licensing prevents ZFS from being bundled with the Linux kernel; unless the license changes it'll probably never be widely deployed.
SuperSpy wrote:just brew it! wrote:No major distros use btrfs by default (though SuSE 13.2, scheduled to be released in the fall, supposedly will). Licensing prevents ZFS from being bundled with the Linux kernel; unless the license changes it'll probably never be widely deployed.
Oh wow, I was under the impression btrfs was still beta-level software and was no where near production quality.
just brew it! wrote:Side note: Interestingly, one of the companies really pushing btrfs forward is Facebook. They have hired the principal author of the current btrfs code base.
Captain Ned wrote:just brew it! wrote:Side note: Interestingly, one of the companies really pushing btrfs forward is Facebook. They have hired the principal author of the current btrfs code base.
This will not end well.
Kougar wrote:I'd read something about OS X adopting a file system that had the capability so I wrongly guessed it was HFS+. It appears I had just gotten confused with previous efforts to get ZFS onto OS X, sorry for the mix up!
Anyone optimistic at all that ReFS will make it into Win 9? The more I read about these advanced file systems the more it's starting to seem like it won't.
Glorious wrote:And, with MS, Longhorn (the project that was variously mutated, killed, and resurrected into Windows Vista and then Windows 7), there originally was going to be a new "WinFS" as major component. That obviously never happened either.
just brew it! wrote:Glorious wrote:And, with MS, Longhorn (the project that was variously mutated, killed, and resurrected into Windows Vista and then Windows 7), there originally was going to be a new "WinFS" as major component. That obviously never happened either.
IIRC WinFS was supposed to be based on MS SQL Server. That just seems like massive overkill to me (and a bit of "square peg in round hole" syndrome as well).