Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Announces ReFS, a New Filesystem For Windows 8
bonch writes "Microsoft has shared details about its new filesystem called ReFS, which stands for Resilient File System. Codenamed 'Protogon,' ReFS will first appear as the storage system for Windows Server and later be offered to Windows clients. Microsoft plans to deprecate lesser-used NTFS features while maintaining 'a high degree of compatibility' for most uses. NTFS has been criticized in the past for its inelegant architecture."
After my initial tests, I must say that ReFS is incredible advangement. ReFS supports named streams, object IDs, short names, compression, file level encryption (EFS), user data transactions, sparse, hard-links, extended attributes and quotas. It is basically all the best filesystems compiled into one.
Not only is this good for Windows system, but overall network architecture.
This is a bad idea.
Now we can count on some guy named 'Hans Resilient" to be tried and found guilty of murder.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Until there is no linux driver for this new FS, i am not going to switch. Not, Ever.
I can't say that I've ever used any of the NTFS features they're planning to drop.
I do wish Windows had a sane soft-link system like *nix does; I've yet to run into an application that automatically dereferences a .lnk when opening it. You have to futz around with opening the link manually, reading it's redirect, and then opening THAT instead. Very crude and ugly.
But more to the point, I didn't see much about what might be NEW with this file system, only what's OLD and being discarded.
Mind you, some basic feature cleanup never hurt anyone. But if that's the case, why not NTFS2 instead of a marketing buzzword?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
All we need is another MS-specific filesystem to cause compatibility headaches.
After my initial tests
Wait, what? From the article:
Officially named ReFS — for Resilient File System — the new file system will be made available via a staged “evolution,” according to a January 16 post on the “Building Windows 8 blog.
So you're saying something that was just announced and will be made available via a staged evolution has already been tested by you? Impressive!
It is basically all the best filesystems compiled into one.
Thanks for summing it up for me there, bud. I didn't realize it was the greatest goddamn filesystem I could imagine, why didn't you just say "Imagine what your dream filesystem will be able to do, this is it." I wonder though, will it have the homicide capacity of ReiserFS?
This reminds me of my initial tests of cold fusion. I must say that cold fusion is incredible dvangement. Cold fusion supports providing us with unlimited power from a glass of water, it prints money, it gives the user eternal life, it allows the user to travel faster than the speed of life and -- when activated -- attractive women jump out of the core reactor demanding money shot after money shot.
My work here is dung.
Dropping support for compressed folders and hard links? I use those features all the time. Especially when you troubleshoot a server with a subfolder containing 12GB of log files, and have no direction or policy about what to do with those old log files, you could safely enable compression on the folder and they magically take up less space.
Today, NTFS is the most widely used, advanced, and feature rich file system in broad use.
If this is true...it's a very sad world we live in...
1) which problem does this solve ?
2) if the answer at #1) is not "null", then how monkeyproof is it ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
I still have devices that need FAT16/FAT12. Can I still use that?
If you're married to "Hans Resilient", you'll want to start running now.
"va-pour-wa-re" until it is available (which never happened to WinFS)
By the way ... do anyone even remember WinFS ?
Sounds like they're due for a refresh so they can get some new patents on their filesystem to make sure all the device makers need to continue to pay them money.
1. Make the kernel support multiple filesystem (which I think it already does), write a wrapper for btrfs
2. ???
3. Enjoy peace and harmony
Granted, I have no slightest clue on what are these streams that virii hide in are, but I doubt they are very useful as no one is moaning for supporting such in Linux. Are there more incompatibilities?
I'm not a filesystem guru. I stick to programming in the application space mostly. But I have noticed a large time discrepency compiling a large project using EXT4 vs NTFS. EXT4 being multiple times faster then doing the same compile on an NTFS. My question now is, will ReFS bring those times up to similar values?
PS. Also looking at the dropped support for short names, i think quite a few server batch files will be broken.
Note the collaboration between this, and numerous other "contributors" between extremely verbose first posts submitted within the same minute
It's called "being a subscriber". Since you don't even know that we can all just assume you've not ever been one and are just a leech.
As for "being paid", I don't know that many people are paying to have humorous articles posted to Slashdot.
You did realize his post was humor, right? It was not to subtle for you to comprehend, right?
Oh.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Are they actually going to release this one? I remember one of the big features of Vista was to be their new filesystem Win FS. Although, I guess Microsoft had enough criticisms to deal with in Vista that it could have been even more of a disaster to release a new filesystem with it.
Well, Apple, it looks like you'll be the last major OS still running a terribly out of date file system. Ditch HFS+!
What could be sadder in this modern life?
I don't get why they don't go with EXT4 or something in that fashion.
"Microsoft plans to deprecate lesser-used features" --- such as the reasonable level of compatibility that has started to show up in non-Microsoft implementations of NTFS over the last couple of years. We may be assured that ReFS is a patent minefield.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Wasn't vista supposed to offer all sorts of cool new stuff, like a better file system ?
OR
is their an upcoming oracle/google/android filesystem that is impacted by the MS announcement ?
.
I have to wonder how much of the pre-release ReFS hype will prove to be true in the coming years.
All the file utilities for both Mac and PC and how you handle these different systems including forward/backward compatibility, Parallels, VMWare, Backup software, hard drives and tape devices will all go through teeth nashing debugs as we try to get everything to work with a new file system.
That may be OK when you are an IT professional.
For someone who "just wants it to work" there is likely to be lots of surprises ahead.
But more to the point, I didn't see much about what might be NEW with this file system, only what's OLD and being discarded.
Mind you, some basic feature cleanup never hurt anyone. But if that's the case, why not NTFS2 instead of a marketing buzzword?
The article hints in various areas that they are restricted by maintaining a high level of compatibility. ReFS is merely a transitional FS from NTFS, and as an unfortunate result it carries some of that burden with being compliant to a high compatibility standard. Part of me thinks this may be the "Vista" of file systems (much of what caused Vista to be awful was due to extreme efforts to maintain compatibility), but I will be critically optimistic about it, given the changes it advertises.
On a side note, the original MSDN blog confuses me on a couple things, namely their statement on deduplication. While they say the ReFS itself does not natively incorporate deduplication, but - like NTFS - will permit 3rd-party support of it, why is it that people have found new FSCTL ops for it in the Win8 header files? Maybe they dropped it? Curious.
And now we'll hear the paid astroturfing M$ shills who invaded /. with their 7 digits IDs explaining us that those "lesser used NTFS features" that are now going to disappear really weren't that great... While for years we had these shills explaining us how one of the reason Windows was so much secure than the various Un*xes out there was due to all these NTFS features.
A few weeks ago, I pulled "Hail Mary" with regards to saving an SBS 2003 server. For whatever reason, the server would not boot after a power failure. The RAID cache was not dirty on the card, and the RAID volume passed a manual parity consistency check. Unfortunately, the server would still not boot into the OS. It kept throwing a BSOD or hung at finding the hal.dll file. Attempting to access the recovery console or other F8 invoked options failed. Any Server 2003 disk would throw a BSOD the moment it attempted to mount the boot "C" volume. It wasn't the RAID drivers, but actual NTFS corruption causing the kernel panic. Serious shit. However, a Server 2008 R2 disk did save my ass. I was able to mount the volume through a command recovery console. A chkdsk revealed massive amounts of corruption. Server is fucked right? NO! A "chkdsk /R" command was able to find and repair all errors. No data loss what-so-ever.
Basically, the server must have been busy with installing updates or something when the power died. An old UPS battery will do that. But this goes to show how remarkably resilient the NTFS system is. Absolute respect!
Life is not for the lazy.
The summary links to a blog commenting on the new public release. The most relevant blog is present on the MSDN here.
While Mary-Jo Foley's blog has a link to it, this saves the hassle of hopping a bit to get to the nitty gritty.
When it comes down to it, NTFS is a pretty good file system. If you look in to things you find that the feature list for BTRFS reads an awful like a feature set of current NTFS.
None of that is to say that NTFS couldn't stand improvement, and indeed it is being improved, but I've yet to see the amazing widely used file system that is so much better than it. Ext3 is functional, but leaves much to be desired.
With patented algorithms to ensure that other OSes won't inter-operate without paying the Microsoft Patent Trolls a fee high enough to buy a Windows license for each machine in question.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
... to no one. Apart from maybe malware writers who'll be able to put an entire virus in the filename. Whether they'll be able to hide it or even use it is another matter but I wouldn't put it past Windows to have a nice exploit available.
Name the file system that offers features similar to NTFS, and is free for use that you recommend. Then please show me the Windows IFS driver for it
People like to hate on NTFS because they hate MS. However I haven't seen any replacements floating around.
Thus far the only thing I've seen in terms of any sort of open cross compatibility is a Ext2 driver for Windows. Not really up to date with that and not the kind of thing I'd want to run Windows on.
So what with nobody providing a great cross platform file system, I don't see why there's a reason not to just use what MS provides. NTFS has worked real well, and if this new FS is an improvement, great.
I'm wondering how many Sun / Oracle ZFS patents they are going to stomp on themselves. I doubt that Oracle will be any more willing to share certain patents with Microsoft, then Microsoft would share with Oracle.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
will filesystem specs again be handled as a "trade secret"? If so it is another basically unusable filesystem that I am forced to use on at least one critical machine. At least there is native NFS client support in Windows now. It really helps preventing the worst as the built-in backup option still sucks.
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
How about a change that has been a long time coming, the elimination of drive letters. It has been a long time since we needed to mark a drive as C: to figure out where too boot the system.
There's a blog post linked from the article.
There's all kinds of promising stuff, like data corruption resilience and dropped/extended limits.
Much more interesting read than the linked ZDNet article.
Indeed very interesting - their approach seems sound and modern. First, they remove the non-essential features from the filesystem to keep it lean. They could be possibly reimplemented on top of the filesystem. And second, they mention using B+trees and allocate-on-write principle, which some modern filesystems use - Reiser4 springs to mind.
Interesting project to follow (and imitate in open source).
It needs some way to securely mount a remote filesystem. SMB and non-anonymous FTP shouldn't be used over the internet ever. It wouldn't be too bad except that FTP is incredibly difficult to reliably tunnel due to it opening connections in both directions on random ports. I would be a happy person if Windows added native support for sftp.
Re[iser]FS. Supervillain. Face transplant. Steve Balmer.
Cannot make a directory for the word CON, PRT, etc - left over from DOS days.
For those of you who take "NTFS has been criticized in the past for its inelegant architecture." for gospel, rather than click the link to check: in NTFS, the file size of a file that is still being written to may be out of date. That's all. A datum that is almost guaranteed to be wrong by the time you use it in the first place.
Meanwhile, NTFS is a solid file system, offering support for Unicode, alternate data streams, compression and ACLs long before any of those got acceptance in the Unix ecosystem. While my sympathies lie more with the GNU folks, I've got to give it to Microsoft for NTFS.
How can one be a "fan" of a kludge (anti-virus) whose purpose is merely to clean up after a bigger problem (bad security) which shouldn't be there in the first place?
Hi, GreatBunzinni. How do I know it's you? Read on.
I'm getting sick of this crap. You've been anonymously following my posts for months now, accusing me of being bonch, SharkLaser, and others. And now you're repeatedly getting upmods for it.
This is not bonch. I don't follow a script. The post you cited from me about rounded rectangles was in response to someone who joked that Apple was suing over rounded rectangles, so of course my post is going to sound similar to someone else who agrees with me. All you did was go through a site that gets thousands of comments a day and round up a bunch of people who fall into the same spectrum on their positions. You can do that with any position--pro-Linux, pro-Google, pro-Microsoft, pro-Oracle, pro-whatever.
If you want to talk about shills posting on multiple accounts, why don't you explain why your anonymous post looks an awful lot like this post by GreatBunzinni? You even tried to link to the same posts, though you didn't format it correctly that time. You've accidentally outed yourself.
In the last month, the accusations of multiple accounts, "shills", and other conspiracy theories has exploded, and it's getting regularly modded up. Accused accounts are actually getting downmods now on legitimate posts. As of this writing, your post is almost +5 Informative. The moderation system has jumped the shark.
So, screw you, GreatBunzinni, for contributing to the chaos of the discussion, trying to force people off the site whose opinions you don't like, and getting people to go along with it.
Signed,
NOT bonch
"Sufferin' succotash."
This crazy post is modded +5 Informative, but there's zero evidence proving that any of the accounts are part of a "Waggener Edstrom rapid response team employed by MS." You people have gotten trolled so hard. Half the accounts he listed don't even post pro-Microsoft stuff, according to their post histories.
Is this really how easy it is to turn the community against people? Just list their names followed by a link to some company's website?
Or is compression and quotas something that you'd want, or at least want to be able to do if you chose on a filesystem level for a server? I know when I was admin of a large SAN half of my work was figuring out who needed how much data and making sure they got it by putting a quota on the hosting array. How exactly you go about this without it at the filesystem level? Are you supposed to provision a LUN for each user that is the size you want? What exactly was the reason for depreciating this? Is there a measurable performance win?
So, in Windows 8 with ReFS (which won't have file-level encryption), is the whole Google argument against giving Chrome a master password now invalidated?
(They argued that Chrome shouldn't be responsible for encrypting its saved passwords since the operating systems file encryption is the proper place for it to be done: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=5f249c4fa04ecd17&hl=en )
The moderation system has jumped the shark.
In Soviet Russia, moderation system is the shark.
The Ars Technica article has a bit more detail on ReFS than the story's original linked article.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2012/01/microsoft-introduces-new-robust-resilient-file-system-for-windows-server-8.ars
I was hoping for a comparison between the ReFS specs and other file systems, such as ext4, but I can't find anything informative enough despite the mods.
Will this for sure break linux os read-write compatibility for good? Or, just until a new module is available to read/write ReFS?
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Wasn't something similar touted for Windows 7? (Or was it Vista?) And Win2K, now I think of it.
The problem isn't CREATING links with mklink.
It's OPENING them from application code in the future.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
"Assuming that everything Microsoft is terrible conversely is trolling."
Assuming would, yes.
But you don't have assume when can _know_.
Here's some knowledge for you :
1) Corporate culture which has heavy emphasis on profits and profits only. Quality is not even mentioned, ever. Gates himself has said that fixing bugs doesn't make money and the corporation is and has been loyal to that idea. Money first.
2) Utterly complicated and forever changing "platforms" for anything guarantee that every program is full of bugs and most of those are so complicated that no-one can fix them.
Also the corporate culture of patching over the bugs and not really fixing them kills the software very soon: You can't change anything (to fix a bug) without breaking something else. Case example: Windows ME.
3) MS uses billions to achieve monopoly status in every area they operate on. Monopoly makes money and MS uses whatever means it wants, illegal or not, who cares?
The only way to sell a lot of cheap crap with high price is to have a monopoly and MS knows this painfully well: They learned it from Intel.
4) Demo-level software and feature lists.
Two major selling arguments on every MS software on planet. They don't have any which is meant for real work and not some simple demos. No wonder, because demos are for selling software. Making actually robust tools isn't making profit.
(Try to make a fancy looking document with Word which is 200 pages. Piece of cake if it has just 1 page. Demo-level software at its finest. )
5) Selling target: MS sells a huge amount of software and practically every time they are selling over users and technical capable staff, directly to management, who have no clue about anything. Or at least something like software quality. Like shooting fish in a barrel. MS uses more money on marketing than research, developing, building and maintaining actual products.
6) Automatic stealing of OEMs money: If you want to sell MS operating system, you can't sell anything else. Absolute abuse of monopoly in all areas and using profits for monopoly to expand other areas. Highly illegal in most of the Western countries but money buys you immunity. If you have enough and MS has.
Points 1-6 guarantee that MS won't and can't ever make a product which isn't crap: It's econimically and physically impossible and that's based on common knowledge with zero assumptions.
Standard procedure with any new product: They hack a quick demo, sell that and if people buy, they throw away 50% of promised features and furiously code something to cover the rest. Money first. Quality? What's that?
Any questions?
Wasn't there a port of FUSE to Win32?
>It needs some way to securely mount a remote filesystem. SMB and non-anonymous FTP shouldn't be used over the internet ever.
Let compare apples to apples.
The protocol NFS is a lot closer to SMB and I highly doubt you would also use NFS over the Internet.
Any protocol can be tunneled you just need to better define what you are doing. Between IPsec, ssh, https, GRE you can pretty much tunnel anything. The more important question is "Why?" With so many alternatives such as sftp, scp.
Adding support for scp to windows is as easy as downloading winscp and putting it your path.
You can e.g. mount an ext3 filesystem using the ext2 driver, and ext4 FS using the ext3 module or an ext2 filesystem (as-is, without converting it) using the ext4 module. In fact on current kernels the ext4 module is the preferred way to mount any ext* partition: you get a speed boost even without on-disk changes.
And, BTW, NTFS is not a filesystem, it's a commercial brand for a family of filesystems with frequent small incompatible changes. Try reading a disk formatted on a recent Windows on an older version...
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
Back when Windows NT first came out (and later the Pentium Pro) neither Microsoft nor Intel had much credibility in the workstation/server space. These were pretty big transitions, much like Boeing designing a new airframe, and by the standards of big enterprise normally applied to these things, both projects hit it out of the park.
Microsoft's mindset at the time was embrace and extend. Let me translate that for you. If someone someday designs a sex android the way Microsoft designed software in the 1990s, it will come equiped with six vaginas. When you get it home, you'll soon discover it came equipped with six shallow / crusty vaginas. Check list compatible, for the PHB. Every vagina under the sun. That was the whole point of Windows NT. When organizations procured software, the first question was "does it have enough vaginas?" Sold, to the man with the bulging eyebrows!
Twelve years later, the auction has moved on. Time to remove all those extra vaginas. A lot has changed since then in seek to fetch ratios. All things considered, NTFS had a pretty good run.
Dalek SEK: "The technology is stolen - the ark is NOT of DALEK design..."
Rose Tyler: "Then who built it?"
Dalek SEK: "The timelords... this is all that survives of their homeworld!"
Rose Tyler: "What's inside??"
Dalek SEK: "THE FUTURE!"
---
* It bites a LOT off of BSD-based *NIX ZFS... & much like MS wanted to do w/ a DB-driven filesystem (which IBM has been doing FOREVER on OS/400-zOS) ala IBM DB/2 (vsam iirc)?
MS didn't succeed yet afaik on that end, using SQLServer, but tried it too, taking ideas from elsewhere...
Heck - they ALL DO IT:
(I can cite things in Linux doing it to MS & vice-a-versa + even Apple too!)
---
1.) MS's process scheduling & thread model it basically took from MS Windows NT-based OS core/kernel subsystems in scheduler & process mgt. - think port completion!
2.) I can cite how MS moved http.sys iirc, out of usermode into kernelmode as Linux has always done...
3.) MS taking NOT starting the IP stack FULLY @ BOOTUP, like Windows 2000 & below do, but only fully once a user makes a 1st request to the net! (Apple did this in MacOS X - MS took a page outta their playbook there, saving boottime massively)
---
Want more? They ALL do it!
Another? ok - BSD based IP stacks anyone?? (Everyone's reaming BSD on that!)
* So, in the end though: Who gains? We do!
(As the end-users of improved stuff, so who really cares from the end-user perspective, you know?)
APK
P.S.=> So far, with this Re(iser)FS (pun intended, lol, loosely) & also Services that "self-shutdown" if idle? I like what I am hearing about Windows 8 thusfar (though I don't really care for the new "Metro interface" much & only hope I can step back to 'classic' mode or AERO type classic mode etc. as it is in Windows 7)...
... apk
While I don't buy the idea that you and bonch are are connected to the MS shill accounts since you seem to be Apple fanbois, there is no question you and bonch seem to be the same person posting the same shit in the same stories.
Even idiots like commodore_64_love would come clean about having multi accounts, but you refuse to. Fuck off.
Singed,
NOT GreatBunzinni
You don't HAVE to compress media files or a folder they sit in with NTFS... especially for media files you noted!
* You can right-click on those files & set their compression attribute to be UNCOMPRESSED via their PROPERTIES (advanced)
APK
P.S.=> I don't like that they're doing a "Trade-Off" here in dropping encrypting filesystem &/or compressed attributes of files/folders/disks for added storage & security, though (can't use both @ once afaik though either anyhow in EFS + Compression on NTFS)
OR
Dropping other things like symbolic directory links (think junctions), &/or EA attributes + quotas (useful for storage AND security too)...
... apk
Dalek SEK: "The technology is stolen - the ark is NOT of DALEK design..."
Rose Tyler: "Then who built it?"
Dalek SEK: "The timelords... this is all that survives of their homeworld!"
Rose Tyler: "What's inside??"
Dalek SEK: "THE FUTURE!"
---
* It bites a LOT off of SUN or BSD-based *NIX 'ZFS' what-with its storage pools... & much like MS wanted to do w/ a DB-driven filesystem (which IBM has been doing FOREVER on OS/400-zOS) ala IBM DB/2 (vsam iirc)?
MS didn't succeed yet afaik on that end, using SQLServer, but tried it too, taking ideas from elsewhere...
Heck - they ALL DO IT:
(I can cite things in Linux doing it to MS & vice-a-versa + even Apple too!)
---
1.) MS's process scheduling & thread model it basically took from MS Windows NT-based OS core/kernel subsystems in scheduler & process mgt. - think port completion!
2.) I can cite how MS moved http.sys iirc, out of usermode into kernelmode as Linux has always done...
3.) MS taking NOT starting the IP stack FULLY @ BOOTUP, like Windows 2000 & below do, but only fully once a user makes a 1st request to the net! (Apple did this in MacOS X - MS took a page outta their playbook there, saving boottime massively)
---
Want more? They ALL do it!
Another? ok - BSD based IP stacks anyone?? (Everyone's reaming BSD on that!)
* So, in the end though: Who gains? We do!
(As the end-users of improved stuff, so who really cares from the end-user perspective, you know?)
So far, with this Re(iser)FS (pun intended, lol, loosely) & also Services that "self-shutdown" if idle? I like what I am hearing about Windows 8 thusfar (though I don't really care for the new "Metro interface" much & only hope I can step back to 'classic' mode or AERO type classic mode etc. as it is in Windows 7)...
APK
P.S.=> I don't like that they're doing a "Trade-Off" here in dropping encrypting filesystem &/or compressed attributes of files/folders/disks for added storage & security, though (can't use both @ once afaik though either anyhow in EFS + Compression on NTFS)
OR
Dropping other things like symbolic directory links (think junctions), &/or EA attributes + quotas (useful for storage AND security too)...
... apk/b
You're supposed to use WebDAV for that. It's not as nice and easy as sftp, but it does work.
I am trolling
1) I'd seriously debate those are better. Ext4 I'll flat out say is not better. That's the reason BTRFS is being worked on and if you read BTRFS's feature set it reads like NTFS's current features. ReiserFS seems to have good features but is flakey, it can have data corruption. That's not acceptable. A FS has to work all the time. ZFS, well see my other post, but maybe that one.
2) Nobody has made Windows drivers for them. Do that, then we can talk. Maybe then Windows people start using another FS, and if that happens, maybe MS looks at official support. However given that the FSes you talk about provide no support for Windows, why should Windows provide support for them?
They removed all the hard to implement features that require tradeoffs, and dumbed down the system to the point where a decent subset of their power users will continue to use NTFS...
All the while missing the single most important thing to happen in storage in the last 50 years... Aka SSDs and the ability to seek quickly.
That is a pretty awesome name. I'm going to name one of my MMO character's that, seriously.
Please, can I finally have a file open and rename the directory containing it without Windows coughing up a dialog box several seconds later telling me the file is busy and I can't do that? UNIX filesystems have had that since, what, the 1970s or 1980s? I'm so sick of the error message from Windows telling me it ca not do what every other modern operating system can do, and that the best I can do to solve the problem is randomly close programs or wait a while and try again. I can understand if the file is being written to, but there's something seriously defective with the way that NTFS currently handles such a basic operation.
I know he goes over "big" here (as do StarTrek, StarWars etc./et al): You just don't "get it"/"catch my drift" here's all!
I.E.-> This "new" ZFS like feature of storage pools on NTFS (ReFS)? It's almost like a "tardis" from the show (Time And, Relative Dimension In Space) - BIGGER ON THE INSIDE THAN IT IS ON THE OUTSIDE!
That's it's "TimeLord Science", Ala Dalek SEK's quote from the scene I employed, & in the episode I used, in the post you replied to (doubtless to "courageously" (lol, NOT) troll me) to make a sort of analogous point describes it!
(ReFS storage pools or better yet perhaps, NTFS compression (HPFS had it 1st afaik, @ least for release to the masses in OS/2 from the IBM-MS camp in those days) - both make MORE go 'inside' a given disk/folder/file than usual!)
Anyone who watched the show knows it & can most likely KNOW where I am coming from - which again, only tells me you're no fan of it (your loss, it's funny & yet good Sci-Fi @ the same time quite often).
* Heh, just thought about it, but.. The compression attributes in NTFS might fit that definition a wee bit better though in fact (as far as the timelord science part, & being 'bigger on the inside').
APK
P.S.=> There's also LITTLE QUESTION that "the technology is stolen" too, as SUN & BSD's had ZFS going LONG before the advent of NTFS/ReFS (or rather imitated, to be more polite about it) from ZFS (& iirc, they got it from an article, @ least the 'broad strokes' of it, called "Iron FileSystems" -> http://research.cs.wisc.edu/adsl/Publications/vijayan-thesis06.pdf but, don't quote me on THAT either...)
... apk
Play from 1:13 position onward on YouTube player control -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmNNZXCfdxo&feature=related
Proctogon? PROCTOGON? You are seriously naming this after an all-seeing (panopticon) anal doctor (proctologist)???
It's true. Microsoft couldn't market an iceberg in the sahara. Or maybe it's truth-in-advertising--this file system is going to crawl so far your computer's ass it'll know what you had for lunch.
Remain calm! All is well!
Yep, that was a nasty freudian slut.
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
Busy stalking me as ac posts again? After all, it's what you 2 do:
(tomhudson = a miserable fat diabetic wreck too that can't program for shit & *thinks* she can but hasn't been noted for it in anything in publication in the realm of the computer sciences, fact)!
Example:
"Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme". - by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal
QUOTED VERBATIM DIRECTLY FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544
"BTW - if you're going to tell this guy to stop spamming his hosts file crap, make sure you do it anonymously" - by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday April 16 2011, @11:45AM (#35840680) Journal
QUOTED VERBATIM DIRECTLY FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086920&cid=35840680
---
"I've been trolling people for 36 years. Why would I stop now? I've also never denied trolling you. Why would I?" - by gmhowell (26755) on Sunday April 17, @05:03AM (#35846218) Homepage
QUOTED VERBATIM DIRECTLY FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2087330&cid=35846218
"I never denied trolling you" - by gmhowell (26755) on Tuesday December 14 2010, @01:55AM (#34543612) Homepage Journal
QUOTED VERBATIM DIRECTLY FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34543612
gmhowell posts journal on trolling myself, years ago now -> http://slashdot.org/journal/266768/the-best-thing-about-trolling-apk
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"The best thing about trolling APK?" - http://slashdot.org/journal/266768/the-best-thing-about-trolling-apk
QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/journal/266768/the-best-thing-about-trolling-apk
---
gmhowell says he will stop next below (after I got on his case) too:
"But seriously, I may stop" - by gmhowell on Thursday June 16, @09:38PM (#36470452) Attached to: The best thing about trolling APK?
and
"Hmm... Maybe oughta lay off for a while." - by gmhowell (26755) on Thursday June 16, @09:38PM (#36470452) Homepage
I took him @ his word, & then laid off on retrolling he, but?
gmhowell starts up YET again (now by AC posts only)!
Proof? Ok, this week -> http://slashdot.org/journal/276148/now-this-is-entertaining
---
* There's NO ESCAPING what you yourselves wrote...
APK
P.S.=> Libeling me now, ontop of stalking me? NOT TOO SMART - it's breaking laws idiots!
... apk
Wasn't Vista supposed to have some amazing new file system as well? At least one year it out when all the cool new features of the OS were announced. In the end nothing shipped and it took another 3 years after that to clean up the mess with Win 7. Win 8 smells like a disaster in the making.
I'm still waiting for WinFS two operating systems ago.
Has WHOOSH been deprecated?
--
I hope this comment creates a much-needed gap in the discussion.