Talk:File system

message: I exhaustively archived this talk page. Someone may want to split that into multiple archives, as archive one is very long. Also, someone with extra free time might want to resurrect any posts in there that are worth keeping here, as that discussion archive is quite a time capsule of this page.
--SuperLuigi 31 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Shouldn't it point to WinFS? countryhacker 11:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transactional NTFS 

message: AFAIK Reiser4 have full transaction support (not only modifacition to single file, but also multiple files, directories, all operations, read,write,modify,create/delete,move, metadata changes are spanned by transaction). Currently there is no direct API available for this, do to the lack of VFS infrastructure. But it supports it, and have been working very well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.255.7 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transactional Reiser4 

message: Readers need to understand that these three terms all refer to the same thing. *** I was surprised to see the term "folder" specifically mentioned in relation to Windows -- I thought it was more of a Mac thing originally? 69.87.200.105 14:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  folder vs. directory vs. sub-directory 

message: The example given "interprocess pipes in Unix have to be implemented outside of the file system because the pipes concept does not offer truncation from the beginning of files.", seems a bit specious, since file-system FIFO pipes ARE present in Unix.  It would make more sense here to give a functional reason (with references), probably one or more of omitting such symmetry in service to performance, faster implementation, or some other constraint.  Certainly both prepending and arbitrary insertion CAN be implemented in a filesystem keeping tracks of data blocks by, say, doubly-linked lists.  The problem is that read speed would be terrible after a while with the read head having to run all over the disk drive to find the scattered blocks.  Etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siodhe (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facilities 

message: I am impressed with the article, at first sight -- but the Plan 9 material seems excessive, in context; seems like it should move to its own article, and be briefly summarized here. 69.87.200.105 14:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  move Plan 9 

message: There are two separate articles, File system and Comparison of file systems, but the talk for Comparison redirects here! Very confusing!!  I don't think it is good, but if the two articles are going to be so joined at the hip, they each need to say so at the top and the bottom of each, and the combined talk page needs to clearly explain what is going on, at the top and the bottom. 69.87.203.23 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Split: this has confused me, too. Someone ought to archive and/or split this page, and remove the redirect from Talk:Comparison of file systems. Even though the articles are related, they are still separate articles and ought to be discussed separately. -- intgr 14:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened (which you apparently were not around for) was that the File system and Comparison of file systems articles were briefly merged around the middle of 2006, and then hastily unmerged when this turned out to be a controversial idea.  However, because of the way the merge was done, the history of Talk:Comparison of file systems was lost, and the rediret pointing to Talk:File system was never undone.  I think this mess requires an admin's attention to untangle.  121a0012 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article Talk redirect confusion 

message: I think, that phrase 
"The /mnt directory exists on many Unix-like systems (as specified in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard) and is intended specifically for use as a mount point for temporary media like floppy disks or CDs." 
better say as 
"The /mnt directory exists on many Unix-like systems (as specified in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard) and is intended specifically for use as a temporary mount point."
FHS directly said (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#MNTMOUNTPOINTFORATEMPORARILYMOUNT), that /mnt is a point for temporary mounts. But mount point for temporary media is /media (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#MEDIAMOUNTPOINT).
P.S. Sorry for my poor English, I'm not a native speaker.
:I've removed protection. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{editprotected}}</nowiki> request 

message: Is there somebody knowledgeable && enthusiastic enough to add a good history section? 
217.236.209.212 20:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually going to request the same thing. -- Beland 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too! File systems have emerged and inspired each other instead of popping out of the nowhere. And there are people behind it. -- JakobVoss (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section?! 

message: I have a problem with the reference to hierarchical organisation in the formal defintion: "More formally, a file system is a set of abstract data types that are implemented for the storage, hierarchical organization..." While most file systems employ tree-like organisation I don't see why file systems are formally defined to not be able to use other methods. --The Extremist [User, Talk] 08:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that definition is still like that. I really have to propose it be removed or re-written. I don't agree with the words "special purpose" or the hierarchical part. And I'm also a little bit against including navigation in that list too (that's sort of more an OS presentation thing). Supertin (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: The table at the bottom of the page showing NTFS and FAT filesytem limits, etc is not accurate.
* There are multiple versions of NTFS, and it's been around a lot longer than since 2000.
* FAT16 is missing.
* NTFS is listed as being readable only by Windows but writable by Linux and OSX aswell... In fact the 2 rows should probably be merged into "supported OSes" (with a "*" note for readonly support if required).
Supertin (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NTFS/FAT table 

message: The crash counting merge tag on this article has been there forever.  Why doesn't an administrator go ahead and do the merge already?  Just how long is this process supposed to take?
Public Menace (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crash Counting Merge 

message: There seems to be some confusion here about the relationship between file systems and databases. A file system is a database since it stores records (files) in a structured way. This is the definition of a database. I am not aware of anyone ever suggesting that a file system is not a specialized database, and there is no citation disputing this. It seems a little silly to say that Berkeley DB is a database and MySQL is a database but that somehow hierarchical access makes a file system lose its database credentials. On the other hand, the common use of "database" is a RDBMS, and neither Berkeley DB (which is a flat mapping of record keys to records) nor a file system qualifies. So saying that it is "debatable" whether to call a file system a "specialized database" is not correct at all, and calling a file system a database (without qualification) is a matter of convention and preference, not a real debate.169.229.200.176 (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What database and file system are are words.  They are abstractions.  What kind of abstraction they are, how they got there, is the purpose of the article.  Using one to describe the other is possible in simile. All writing is debatable, and improvable.  The bigger the article, the more improvement room it has. Lucidity is the drum beat of a concept with various orchestral instruments.  If I want to profess file system, one of the instruments is database, another is the phrase "sequence of bytes".  The history of file systems can best describe a file system:  A file system is a reel of magnetic tape.   The more we write, the more ways we sayit, the more things begin to make sense, and the more the path to rebuilding becomes clear. — CpiralCpiral 06:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filesystem = Specialized Database 

message: I just removed content copied by  back in April from this KB article. I came across the funny formatting in the 'File systems under Microsoft Windows' section so I checked through the history and found this anonymous editor's contributions. A quick Google search found the KB article, from which most of the text had been copied.
Why did no-one notice this copyright violation? Always be suspicious of edits adding large chunks of well-written text, especially if it's coming from an anon or new user. The use of HTML formatting tags is also a good indicator. All it takes is to copy a sentence or two into Google Search to find the source. --Imroy (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of material copied from Microsoft's knowledgebase 

message: The first sentence reads: "In computing, a file system (often also written as filesystem) is a method for storing and organizing computer files and the data they contain to make it easy to find and access them."
I think this definition is circular.  Isn't it the file system that creates the concept of files in the first place?  A storage device is, after all, just a big ol' collection of bits (yeah, yeah, blocks and sectors, but you get my point).  The file system is what organizes the disk into files.  Without a file system, we programmers would have to bit-twiddle on the drive itself (actually, that sounds kind of fun).
I propose the following instead: "In computing, a file system (or filesystem) is a method for organizing blocks of related binary data into abstractions called files, for the purpose of making it more accessible and usable." Mbarbier (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first sentence 

message: I have added all the content (such as it is) from Prospero (file system) per the Merge consensus close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prospero (file system). There are academic cites (including , and ) for this filesystem, but I wanted to get this merged first so as to redirect the source article per the merge closure and thus complete that process. I will be citing and revising this content shortly.  — Becksguy (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prospero (file system) 

message: I am plugging away at what I consider an improvement for the operating system article,
when I venture here while doing that work there, and I see this article has a similar need:
See the discussion at Talk:Operating_system#Devoting_an_entire_section_to_each_notable_OS.
IMHO, prose product sections are magnets for vandalism, spam, WP:COI and the like.
and are best presented in a comparison table, while the prose contains lucid theory, with
products mentioned in a third tier, under practice, under concept, while giving examples of theory.
i.e IMHO, the article should be about file system terminology first, usage of that terminology
in as many ways as possible, as learned from how the field uses file system terminology.
Second it should use the terms in examples, as dictionaries do.  But these examples are not
yet products, they are primarily the general practices, shared by products.  Third, when necessary,
refer to products that are unique, so that the terminology gets a thorough representation of the field.
The size and the vandalism at Operating system got me started thinking this way.
The size of of this article is 36kb. 
It will grow even bigger with the structure the way it is, with products as section titles.
BTW, the section titles of this article are not in agreement with WP:MOSHEAD,
where it says "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article".
— CpiralCpiral 09:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of this article 

message: The "Tape Formatting" and the "Tape Booting" sections do not refer to File Systems.
The contents of the "Tape Formatting" section makes largely correct statements about data tape technologies. However, historically data tapes have not used any kind of file system. This section should be moved to the "Magnetic tape data storage" page
* Historically, data tapes have definitely used a file system including volume names, files names, volume metadata, file metadata in addition to the file's data.DG12 (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tape Formatting and Tape Booting 

message: The Database file systems section starts with "A recent concept for file management is" and yet that section ends with an external link to a The Register article that was written in March 2002. That is over 9 years ago, which is a long time when it comes to computers, see for instance this timeline. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   A recent concept for file management 

message: I’ve written a section on the (im)possibility of (in-place) file system conversion in this version. It includes a mention of convertfs, a program for in-place conversion via sparse files. The linked technical description is of some interest – it’s a clever idea – but the program itself is very rough and has been unsupported for years, so I want to avoid promoting its use, hence only link to the homepage in a footnote, not in the article text, and include serious caveats. Hope you enjoy!
:—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are operating systems other than Linux.  121a0012 (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The section also discusses in-place conversion in Windows. Guy Harris (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  conversion / convertfs 

message: to general definitions as there are many articles detailing the specifics of individual file systems 
DG12 (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Please restrict this article

message: I disagree with DGerman's recent edits removing the material about filesystems being human readable. I am bringing the discussion here rather than start an edit war since he/she has strong opinions enough to do a sudden mass-rewrite.
Computers don't need filesystems and programs don't care about directory/file names. They can just as easily access data directly at the block/sector level, though that is unwieldy for the end-user / operator. DMahalko (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes DGerman, file systems make data understandable by humans

message: Most people will read the first few sentences and expect to somewhat get the idea of what they're trying to understand or learn.
Seeing "a filesystem is an abstraction to store, retrieve and update a set of files does no good to the average reader regarding this perplexed starting sentence.
Perhaps we should aim for something along the lines of: 
"A filesystem is an implementation of software that acts as an abstraction to store, retrieve, and update a set of file blocks on a storage drive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.208.111 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I rewrote the intro to try to make it more understandable.  Further improvements welcome.  I'm not sure what credit crunch article you are talking about, but I agree it can definitely be a problem in certain subject areas.  Fortunately, this is a "flaw in Wikipedia" you can fix by rewriting jargon into beautiful shiny prose.  If you don't have the expertise or time, well, that's what the "too technical" tag is on this article for.  Editors who do have subject expertise would benefit if you could help them toward something more comprehensible, perhaps by explaining exactly what you are stumbling over or what sort of statement you are looking for. -- Beland (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  If this article is "too technical", one might agree that the starting sentence may be the culprit 

message: Why is there no link from this article to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_file_system  — Preceding unsigned comment added by B0ef (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because nobody's added one. Guy Harris (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL :) Stevebroshar (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantic File System 

message: Please update the section about exFAT. It's already disclosed to public domain and supported by linux kernel 213.228.137.159 (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  exFAT update needed 

message: In general, this article is too long. Surely it goes off topic. But, I didn't remove much. Just noted that.
Like other pages I've looked at and edited, this one is for a popular tech topic with a long history. It has been edited a zillion times and suffers from drift -- in focus and in quality.
I edited the lede and a few sections after that. By page 20 I lost interest :)
Notes on what was wrong and why I edited:
* A file system is not a data structure even though it does involve data and structure and an implementation surely includes various data structures
* Removed duplicate etymology info from lede since didn't add value (as duplicate) and lede was too long anyway. Also renamed section on etymology as 'etymology'
* The history and market share of HDD is off topic, removed
* Distinguished between local vs distributed file systems throughout
Stevebroshar (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited