Talk:Comparison of file systems

message: Right now this article is among others split into
* Metadata
* Features: File capabilities
* Features: Block capabilities
* Features: Allocation and layout policies
But as it is right now it is inconsistently applied:
* "Metadata" deals mostly with global metadata, but has loads of metadata that is stored on a per file basis like owner, permissions, and timestamps and would fit better in "file capabilities".
* "Metadata" also has a section Checksums that deals with metadata checksums only, but then there is a footnote for "Btrfs" that says: disabling checksums disables user data checksums. When that does not affect metadata checksums at all, only block checksums (I already fixed this just now)
* "file capabilities" deals with naming/and file handling, but has a sections called "metadata-only journaling" that would fit better into the "Metadata" section.
* "Block capabilities" has many features that concern user data, but that many filesystems don't make accessible on a per block basis but on a per file or per directory basis (e.g. encryption, or "data checksums" in ReFS). Or only on a per cluster rather than a per block basis. Maybe this section should just be called "user data capabilities"?
We should rename the sections and/or restructure the article so that the subsections actually make sense.
Kwinzman (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing splits into sections 

message: Solaris doesn't support Lustre and incorrectly has a Yes box.  See Sun's own page or Wikipedia's page.
Aolcarton (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solaris does not support Lustre 

message: The Limits section on NTFS states "Allowable characters in directory entries" are "Any Unicode except NUL, /". I believe this is incorrect.  As stated in the Microsoft Naming a File page (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365247(VS.85).aspx), it clearly states
That almost any character is supported, except for the following:
* The following reserved characters are not allowed:
      < > : " / \ | ? *
* Characters whose integer representations are in the range from zero through 31 are not allowed.
* Any other character that the target file system does not allow.
We discovered this limitation while backing up files from an HFS+ file system to an NTFS 6.0 file system. The HFS+ system had a carriage return (decimal value 13) embedded in the file name.
--Jamercee (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NTFS Limits 

message: Please provide reference for UFS2's support of block journaling. I cannot find one.
Moniker117 (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: FreeBSD's gjournal(4) requires filesystem support (transactions) in order to provide the safety guarantees for which journaling is desired; this is implemented in UFS2.  (UFS1 is not distinct from UFS2 in this sense: it is the same code, just a different on-disk format.  So UFS1 "supports" journaling by default.)  121a0012 (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFS2 and Block Journaling Support 

message: Online shrink/grow for HFS+ are currently listed as "unknown". The Boot Camp Assistant allows shrinking (when you create a Windows partition) and growing (when you delete one) of the running system's HFS+ partition. I don't know whether this is implemented in the FS driver or if it's a hack implemented somehow else... 24.60.192.190 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  HFS+ Online Shrink/Grow 

message: The two tables for Metadata and Features, ReiserFS (which I assume is of the version 3) has none of the discussed properties ('No' for every single item). While I am no expert in file systems and ReiserFS in specific, this seems to be contradicting the page of ReiserFS, which states that one of the most publicised features of ReiserFS is "Metadata-only journalling". This suggests ReiserFS should have the minimal metadata for the purpose of system journalling. Besides, the table Features should otherwise have at least the Metadata journalling set to 'Yes' for ReiserFS. I have also checked earlier versions of this page (beginning of this year), and found that the tables were indicating many different properties for ReiserFS.
Obviously, vandalism has happened to this page recently. The maintainer of this page please restore the page to the proper state. It is much appreciated. 125.253.12.53 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes about ReiserFS? 

message: I was just reading about WinFS on it's own WikiPedia page, and was wondering how it compared to all these other file systems.  It's not here.  Oh well.  I think it would be nice to have here.
71.174.4.229 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include WinFS? 

message: The link given is broken, does anyone have a backup for the driver that allows NTFS to be used with Windows 95/98? I could really use it. Coolgamer (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NTFS for windows 98 driver? 

message: I've added a new column to the features table to cover deduplication.  I've filled in what I know of existing or being in development, but this leaves a lot of unknown entries.  I suspect that all of the unknown's are really no but I don't have the knowledge to say for sure.
Darrenmoffat (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deduplication 

message: I've Added/Updated Tables 1 and 2 for exFAT and TexFAT. But these 2 FS types should be added to tables:
* 3 Metadata
* 4 Features
* 5 Allocation and layout policies
* 6 OS support
Also Table 6 OS Support Needs Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 break out (maybe in the same column?) Frankk74 (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Info about XP, Vista, and Win7 would be nice... It has been many since NT stopped being supported. 72.251.91.186 (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Windows NT refers to the entire family of NT OSes; Microsoft decided to call NT 5.0 "Windows 2000", and all subsequent Windows NT OSes have had names that don't start with "Windows NT", such as "Windows XP", "Windows Vista", "Windows 7", "Windows Server 2003", "Windows Server 2008", etc.. Guy Harris (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Updates/Todos 

message: Why there is "NO" for ReiserFS & Ext? for File Creation Time Stamps?
I feel that this article is worthless since it contains obviously erroneous information.
Might someone fix that or delete the article? --82.113.121.154 (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  File Creation Time Stamps 

message: It would be interesting to have some comparison of market share or some other usage statistic, either here or on file system. -- Beland (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market share 

message: I feel that this table would be much more useful if it did not list any filesystems until they are supported by more than one OS.  After all, while long list of special purpose linux filesystems is interesting, it seems like it perhaps defeats the purpose of this table?  Why not focus on Cross-OS support, perhaps even labeling it such instead?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.99.237 (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OS support 

message: According to http://www.freebsd.org/projects/bigdisk/index.html, UFS2 file and volume limit is 2^73, not a "Yobibyte". --Eike sauer (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFS2 limits 

message: This may sound random, but Wikipedia led me astray on my home work and I should try to prevent it for others.  The given max size in:
"The actual maximum was 8,847,360 bytes, with 7 singly-indirect blocks and 1 doubly-indirect block; PWB/UNIX 1.0's variant had 8 singly-indirect blocks, making the maximum 524,288 bytes or half a MiB."
is incorrect.
According to the Version 6 Manual, http://wwwlehre.dhbw-stuttgart.de/~helbig/os/v6/doc/V/fs.html, the max size is 32, but cannot be larger than 16 bue to only storing 24-bits of filesize info in each inode rather than 25.  The 8,847,360 number obtained above was the result of calculating it with 4 byte addresses, which is obviously incorrect given the definition in the manual. Vkgfx (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  V6FS Max Size 

message: I am going to add more information on Amiga OS. It has information on the first table but none on the others. If anybody has objections to this, post them here and soon. In-Correct (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Isn't There More Information On Amiga OS?! 

message: I notice that "George 2" appears as a file system, though without any reference or link. I don't know anything about GEORGE 2 but I did use GEORGE 3 and so I know that its filestore was very significant, having automatic volume management with backups, versioning etc. Were these the same filesystem or not? The GEORGE 3 one should certainly appear in the table, IMHO.
George 1 and 2 were really just batch job dispatch systems that sat on top of a standard ICL executive. You could use them or not, they were just slightly more privileged standard processes. George 3 was a complete operating system that took over the entire machine. One could only run George 3 on the larger "West Gorton" (and later "Stevenage") ICL machines that had extended branch mode addressing. 82.68.205.1 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  GEORGE 2 & GEORGE 3 

message: Many people coming to the page are only interested in comparing current Files Systems to decide which to use. However, because all of the comparison tables are multiple screens long and compare every file system that has existed, they find the page to be mostly useless. We need a way to show only current information for those who want it, in order to increase utility. A method for allowing the viewer to sort information and suppress what they don't need would also be good.
This is a general comment applicable to all comparison articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.206.28 (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern System Only Option

message: The purpose of the field 'Original Operating System' is not clear. I would assume that it applies to the Operating System/s the Filesystem first appeared in. However, the field does not currently appear to reflect this. I have removed some anachronisms ie Windows pre NT (Windows v1 - 3.1 were not operating systems), and Mac OS X pre 1999, Linux pre 1990. There appear to be some other issues, eg Joilet support was not originally present in Mac OS and required an extension to be added, ISO9660 was not included in the Amiga OS until OS3.1 (released about 1992) but was available as a third party add on), XFS was originally IRIX only and then later ported to Linux (and by this logic, virtually all the FS could have Linux listed), and no doubt more.
The solution may be to have two fields, one called Original Operating System, and another listing OSes which support the filesystems. 138.25.11.181 (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Operating System 

message: Why aren't the values in these two columns in the scientific notation? This way the sorting by each of the columns would work correctly (now it doesn't).
512upload (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum file size and Maximum volume size format 

message: What is the maximum file size for Apple iOS, which is used in the iPhone and iPad?  I've been trying to find this official fact.  • Sbmeirow • Talk •  22:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: iOS uses HFSX, which is HFS+ with a few minor tweaks, none of which affect the maximum file size. Foxyshadis(talk) 09:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[iOS (Apple)]] 

message: I would, personally, like to see comparison data between the efficiency of differing file systems, particularly in the context of what percentage of the absolute total capacity is needed for file system metadata in order for it to represent the file system itself. For example, a less space-efficient design would use a larger percentage just to store metadata, rather than actual files, and vice versa. I realise that there are often more important factors than pure efficiency; such as discoverability for diagnostics, scalability, reliability, redundancy, et al.
Notes on original design goals would be useful, too, if known, such as design for file storage, database, streaming media, sequential vs random access, et al. — Lee Carré (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most modern filesystems do not use a fixed reservation for filesystem metadata; the number you ask for will depend on the size, structure, and number of files stored, and in many cases also on the modification history, presence of snapshots, use of journaling, stride length, and size of the underlying disk sectors.  So what you ask for really cannot be defined rigorously without a precise specification of the contents of the filesystem (and even there, the results would likely not be realistic).  For filesystems with integrated volume management, like ZFS, it would also depend on the configuration of the underlying storage pool.  121a0012 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for extra information about metadata space efficiency (percentage use of drive capacity) 

message: I was wondering about the  hatnote as there was no talk thread. I tracked the addition of the hatnote down to this massive edit on 16 Feb 2009. A couple of minutes after that edit is this small one by the same user. I took a look at Special:Contributions/Gzpguest and am quite concerned about that user's edit's to this article as he/she was blocked for edits to other articles and some of the user's contribution to this article was clearly an attempt to vandalize it.
I don't know if it was WP:AGF at work or the edits were overlooked. Someone corrected Gzpguest's change of ReiserFS to MurderFS but an edit battle of sorts started with people attempting to re-insert MurderFS wording and it looks like most of the Gzpguest contribution snuck through including the hat note that got my attention today.
I don't have time to do a blow-by-blow check of what Gzpguest modified in those two edits against the current article but believe we need to revert all information that this user added/removed to the article. Hopefully someone's got the time for that thankless task. I'll start by removing the hat note. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feb-2009 vandalism needs stripping out 

message: The articles says all Unicode character except NUL and \ / : * ? " < > | are allowed,
but in Linux NTFS files can contain any Unicode character except NUL and /.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.222.25 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allowed characters in NTFS file names 

message: Is it mentioned outside its inventors' site and this page? Notability? 195.98.165.2 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IlesfayFS? 

message: Besides being an essentially dead OS, the column is currently useless, which all unknowns except for one single Yes. If no one objects or fills it in, I'll remove it until someone comes in with better data. Foxyshadis(talk) 09:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove HPUX 

message: A previous commenter has mentioned the inappropriate inclusion of George 2, which was in fact an operating system. The file system underlying George 2 (and all ICL 1900 executives/operating systems prior to George 3/4) was originally BDAS (Basic Direct Access Standards) and later UDAS (Unified Direct Access Standards). UDAS was noteworthy in providing a standard which meant that applications did not need recompilation, whatever type of direct access device they were accessing, anything from a small Twin EDS (about 1.5 megabytes, as I recall) to a large fixed disk.
I am unclear to what extent the George 3 filestore was founded on UDAS, but on balance I think it was.
86.139.4.232 (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICT/ICL 1900 file systems 

message: Why ExFAT's "year introduced" column has two dates? 2006 and 2009? it makes no sense.
It was introduced in 2006 Cainamarques (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ExFAT correction... 

message: A merger proposal was made by Ruud Koot in January to merge List of file systems into this article but no discussion was started, so in before merging by silence...
Oppose - The differentiation between list and comparison works, they have different scopes so there is no overlap and also the resulting article would be too long 
Cainamarques (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: please someone add how well the different file systems are at handling many many small files. i understand that reiserfs is good at this, and jfs is also alright, but that most file systems are not. please add this information. 41.204.77.67 (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  handling small files 

message: Two questions that I can't find the answer to using this page:
1. What is the performance of handling high amounts of small files (up to a few dozen sector)? For example, FATxx and ReiserFS are very fast and journaling file systems (eg. NTFS) can be extremely slow.
2. How many files can be stored in one directory? For example, the only reason I'm not using FAT32 anymore is because when you put more than about 30000 files in a directory, it says disk full, while in fact only the directory is full. Exact number varies with length of filenames. --Zom-B (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handing of small files 

message: in praxis it is very important how good accidentally remarked files can be restored.
for example  fat, reiser3.6, ext2 files can be easier restored - ext3 is cruel   79.203.151.23 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  undelete 

message: One more for the pot? The disc file system of the Sinclair QL launched in 1984.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.120.218 (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  QLFS? 

message: What about less POSIX file systems?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.180.11 (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDFS 

message: I think it would be of interest to have a column "Date range". BuSchu (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date range 

message: Does it make sense to do the effort to separate the column for resize feature in one for online and one for offline resizing. Currently, the overview is rather poor as a statement like "Online (cannot be shrunk)" does not point out whether the shrinking is not possible online (but offline it is) or not possible in general. Some information is only usable if one reads the citation source, e.g. one might think that ext4 is online shrinkable after having a look on the table, while it might make the information in the footnote more easily accessible. Krichter1 (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of Resize feature column (in feature section) 

message: The ability to grow a UFS File system was added in FreeBSD 10 according to the Developers and many other sites and tutorials
[]
[]
89.207.120.69 (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFS Grow in FreeBSD 

message: A major current OS is not represented in the supported OS section: Windows 8. Whatever its lineage, Win 8 may or may not have support for file systems that could differ from Win NT and Win 9x. Yet Win NT and Win 9x are the only "Windows" columns in the "Supported operating systems" section. For a non-power or non-historically-knowledgeable current Windows user, this supported OS section seems out of  date.
169.234.72.254 (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Windows NT refers to the entire family of OSes that began with Windows NT 3.1 and is currently up to Windows 10. Guy Harris (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8 not represented for "Average Joe" readers who don't know if Windows NT is the same or not 

message: ... of 4,096 what? UTF-8 coded Characters? Or Bytes? --91.15.18.34 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Linux has a pathname limit of 4,096." 

message: The massive edit on 24 July 2015 (-42,930 characters) removed a lot of information and reformatted pretty much everything.  All the ext filesystems had their "Allowable characters in directory entries" changed from "Any byte except NUL and /" to "Any byte except NUL".  I believe this is in error.  See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9847288/is-it-possible-to-use-in-a-filename and the function "link_path_walk" in the source.
Thoughts or arguments?  I propose the change be reverted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.222.246.77 (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ext filesystem limitations 

message: It surprised me that UDF was listed as not supporting sparse files. I have had success on FreeBSD and OS X with this in the past, in fact very long ago. The simplest way to do sparse files is with short_ad (Short Allocation Descriptor) marked 2 (extent not recorded and not allocated). Since two bits are needed for the type you have 30 bits left for the size. Assuming 512 block size, this permits holes of up to 1GB. Possibly linux or other OSes does not implement sparse file support or ls does not report it correctly, but at least when I tried it it worked in the naive manner of seeking to create the holes. Also this will work in any UDF version and any compliant implementation will return zeros on reading it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.136.61 (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  UDF sparse file support 

message: As SSDs have become commonplace some mention of features contributing to relative suitability of different file systems for use with SSDs and/or file system features for taking advantage of SSDs, would be welcome.  --Ericfluger (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solid State Disks 

message: Inclusion of the Hammer file system from Dragonfly BSD would be welcome. (HAMMER) --Ericfluger (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hammer? 

message: While there's no room for details, it might be helpful to call attention to file systems with significant differences between multiple implementations (UFS) or with different on-disk formats (CP/M).  Footnotes with links to the in-depth articles might do it. 
--Ericfluger (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple implementations? 

message: This page states that XFS was introduced in 1994, but the main XFS article says 1993.  Which is it? Paulej (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article says "Silicon Graphics began development of the Extents File System or XFS in 1993, including it in IRIX for the first time in its version 5.3 in 1994." So probably wasn't generally available before 1994, but may already have been promoted earlier. (ZFS was also being marketed a long time before it shipped in Solaris 10). —Ruud 14:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  XFS Introduced When? 

message: I would appreciate a column about the maximum number of entries per directory.
Actually, this page is referenced from a serverfault question adressing this information (which is of course serverfaults fault) - Peter W.
85.176.72.158 (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Server Fault question also has a lot of answers pointing out that most if not all Unix filesystems do not have hard limits (other than "directories use the same type of container as regular files, so whatever limits the file system might place on container size limit the number of entries in a directory") on the number of entries per directory, so, at least for Unix file systems, the column would say "unlimited" or "N/A" or something such as that. I suspect the same applies to Windows filesystems. Guy Harris (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limits of directory "size"? 

message: JFS does support online grow, it does NOT support offline grow. I know it seems weird, but this is how it works.
To online grow JFS partition one has to run the following command: 
  mount -oremount,resize /dev/sda1
The resize option is invalid without remount option.
  # lvcreate -n test /dev/Arch -L 20M
  Logical volume "test" created
  mkfs.jfs /dev/Arch/test 
  mkfs.jfs version 1.1.12, 24-Aug-2007
  Warning!  All data on device /dev/Arch/test will be lost!
  Continue? (Y/N) y
  Format completed successfully.
  20480 kilobytes total disk space.
  # lvresize -L +10M /dev/Arch/test 
  Rounding up size to full physical extent 12,00 MiB
  Extending logical volume test to 32,00 MiB
  Logical volume test successfully resized
  mount -oresize /dev/Arch/test /mnt/1   
  mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/mapper/Arch-test
^^^^ this command proofs that offline resize is not possible
  # mount  /dev/Arch/test /mnt/1
  # mount -oresize,remount /dev/Arch/test
  # df /dev/Arch/test 
  Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
  none                   4086148       516   4085632   1% /dev
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.206.112.7 (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to update the article, preferably with a reliable source rather than your tests, as your own tests could be viewed as original research.  Guy Harris (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Probably this information is only refered to Linux. AIX support it since long time ago. April 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.137.130 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resize capabilities table is wrong for JFS (Linux or AIX?) 

message: The File capabilities list is missing a column about file content/user data checksums. This would include ZFS, ReFS, NILFS, HAMMER (entire row to be added) and Btrfs - but not APFS, which only does metadata checksums. Am I missing one? TriTachionTertiary (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  NTFS not support file checksums. ECC is supported on block device level, not the filesystem level. The checksum supported "Yes" is misleading. Interpreted in this way, all filesystem on hard disks support ECC for example... :):):):)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szolnoki~enwiki (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Since this comparison is for filesystems we should only include the properties of filesystems it self. E.g. ZFS =yes. But if the checksums are a separate layer like "dm-verity" then no. And if it's just the regular ECC that is on every HDD disk then obviously also no. Kwinzman (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

text:  I agree this category is confusing right now. It should be split into: "metadata checksums/ECC", and "data checksums/ECC". I think that's also what you meant when you said "file" checksums. Kwinzman (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just realized that user data checksums are in a separate table "Block capabilities". Kwinzman (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  File checksums 

message: OrangeFS should be added to this page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.107.156.197 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to do so. Guy Harris (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  OrangeFS 

message: APFS accepts only valid UTF-8 encoded filenames for creation, and preserves both case and normalization of the filename on disk in all variants. [...] APFS doesn’t allow files to be created with filenames that contain unassigned codepoints in the Unicode 9.0 standard, whereas HFS+ does. 
:Feel free to update the APFS entry. Guy Harris (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allowed characters in file name for APFS 

message: In my opinion the added "software license" column by Tim@ is misleading. NTFS is listed as GPL, however none of the FAT variants are. Everything implemented in any BSD and Linux would have to be listed under two licenses, e.g. the ISO 9660 Fs. HAMMER (from DragonflyBSD) is listed as "Proprietary", which is wrong. Same for UFS2. Where the links just crawled and searched for a mention of any license?
I would argue that a "license" does not make sense for a file system, especially since most are tighly integrated into an OS. In the end this just lists the licenses of the implementing OSes, with few exceptions (ZFS). The Patent situation (see exFAT) might be more relevant. TriTachionTertiary (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, given that an on-disk (or over-the-wire, for remote file systems such as NFS and SMB) file system can have multiple implementations, under different licenses, in which case speaking of the file system's license would not make sense.  At most, it could refer to the license of the first implementation, by the creator of the file system. Guy Harris (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Yes I just added "most permissive license" instead of "current creators license" (as some change over time). This is a common column for many software categories and is useful to many. Many popular file systems are ported to other operating systems and as MS vs Motorola demonstrates it's important to know the licensing and patenting. Also fixed hammer and UFS. --Tim (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc. concerned patenting.  A software license wouldn't be violated by a clean-room implementation, but a patent can be infringed even by a clean-room implementation.  Your changes don't mention patents. Guy Harris (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And that case also didn't involve file systems.  File Allocation Table#Challenges and lawsuits mentions patent cases relating to the FAT file system.  Guy Harris (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

text:  "Most permissive" gets a bit weird too.  Many of the file systems listed as proprietary (HFS Plus, exFAT for example) should be listed as GPL by this reasoning, as they have GRUB and/or Linux drivers.  There's other cases such as ZFS, which also has a GPL'd implementation in GRUB, but it's not really clear whether CDDL or GPL is more permissive (though they are usually considered mutually incompatible).  Perhaps it's better to just remove the column. --Chungy (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, Microsoft have not published any NTFS specifications, under any license, and the NTFS implementation in Windows NT-family OSes is not GPLed.  There exist other implementations, released under other licenses; there's one for Linux that's GPLed, for example. Guy Harris (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have already updated the article to reflect this, but other filesystems (e.g., vfat) are also in this situation. --ssd (talk)
For pretty much all the reasons stated in this thread as well as WP:BOLD, I'm removing it again. The column header indicates "most permissive implementation" but the entries clearly don't follow suit. Most of the file systems listed as "proprietary" would otherwise be listed under open source licenses (Unix v6, v7, FAT, Rock Ridge, ISO 9660, APFS...). It's rather ridiculous, and I think the article is better off without the misleading information. --Chungy (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "software license" column again 

message: At least two filesystems that are quite commonly used in embedded space are missing from this page: SquashFS and UBIFS.
Keyakakushi46 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add them. Guy Harris (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Added SquashFS. Feel free to correct any of my mistakes. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing filesystems 

message: Are APFS resizing capabilities (online/offline grow/shrink) known yet? I found this article. 46.117.131.56 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  APFS Resizing Capabilities 

message: Columns have been added for ReactOS and Redox, and while I can appreciate enthusiasm that their fans engender, I don't believe either of these constitute a major operating system as of now, and are just minor hobbyist projects instead. I don't believe they deserve to be listed on this page. Thoughts? --Chungy (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed this, WP:BOLD and all. Sorry to the fans of the OSes, I don't think they deserve mention here. --Chungy (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Same for the Redox OS file system TFS, also removed that. Only had yes or dunno wrt. features, and it is not even stable yet. --TriTachionTertiary (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operating system notability in the support section 

message: It seems that source 27 for the ReFS max filesize has changed, it now reports a max filesize of 35PB instead of 16EiB. Checking the Internet Archive it did indeed previously report 18EB, which is approximately 16EiB. I'm pretty sure the new change is wrong on microsoft's side, since source 25 still reports 16EiB (2^64 - 1 bytes). Funnily, both are microsoft sources.
There generally seems to be a dispute/misinformation regarding the maximum filesize. The german wikipedia currently reports a maximum filesize of 262144 EiB - 1 byte, probably the source is wrong here as well. Jkhsjdhjs (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ReFS maximum filesize 

message: We maybe should add a column for crash-consistency for each filesystem. It is a kinda important information. Does finality of writes exist, even if the server crashes exactly after it told the application the write/sync completed? Will it damage the filesystem and require fsck? Will it "just work" after a reboot? Agowa (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crash Consistency safety? 

message: Information about how filesystems deal with being simultaneously mounted on multiple server I.E. accessed concurrently by multiple systems would be important. Especially nowerdays as everything is moving to more and more "cloud-philosophy". Only a few filesystems support RW access from multiple independent servers to the same shared backing block device. Many/Most however support single RW and multiple RO access just fine. And only a few don't support any concurrency at all. And in cases of where single RW and multiple RO access works, it should be noted if that is enforced by the filesystem (e.g. by checking timestamps) or not.
This kind of safety is often also referred to as shared-disk file system. As formerly stated, such setups are very commonly used for: backup purposes (backup server has a RO mount of the production filesystem), server rooms and centers that have a dedicated storage network (SAN), virtual machines, ... Agowa (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concurrency safety? 

message: The limits in this article are not the same as in the ReFS article.
The limit is 35PB.
Can someone verify it and fix?
ויקיטכני (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ReFS limits