Let's talk about FAT64?

[pmistry 0]

FAT or FAT16 was the original File System, and used 16-bit numbers to calculate partition sizes and stuff. [Or something to that effect] FAT32 came along to break the barriers by using 32-bit numbers. Isn't possible to use 64-bit numbering to drive partition sizes even higher and use low cluster sizes?

 

Just a thought...

[pbuckne 0]

Not that I am particularly a brain on the subject, but of late I much prefer NTFS, it is much more stable in my experience, and loses far less data over time. I would much rather see new work in that area, stretching its limits.

 

I understand it has its roots in HPFS, which is more unix based?

[DosFreak 2]

I highly doubt that you'll see Microsoft improve Fat. NTFS yes. FAT no. It's definetly not worth it.

[pbuckne 0]

Agreed. Too easily damaged by Viruses or accidents at the front of the drive from what I understand.

[Brian Frank 0]

So far, I've never had check disk come up after an unplanned reboot with NTFS. The only time I have it come up is when I force it to run with DiscKeeper. That's it. Unless MS was going to do something drastic with FAT filesystems, it wouldn't be worth it. There's even less reason to with NTFS.

[pmistry 0]

Yeah I do agree that FAT has hit its end. I was just wondering if it was possible to create a FAT64.

 

Also NTFS is built off of the HPFS file system. I am not sure if it has roots in UNIX, but it was IBM's main file system for OS/2. NT 3.51 supported HPFS but that support was killed off in NT4.

[OLEerror 0]

It's possible to create FAT64, but I doubt the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages. A new 64-but filesystem is coming, though. I don't know if it will be released with Longhorn or Blackcombe. I'm betting Blackcombe.

[Brian Frank 0]

Is it a new NTFS or something completely different.

[clutch 1]

It would probably be a new version of NTFS, and more than likely have lineage from "Yukon" (next-gen SQL release) in how it tracks data on the harddrive. MS is looking to run the next releases of SQL Server and Exchange Server on the Yukon core, and it wouldn't take much to extend it to disk handling.

[clutch 1]

Just an update to my last post; I got this today in my Windows.NET newsletter, and the following explains in more detail what the next file systems will be like:

 

Quote:

Windows Longhorn, the client and server OS that will follow .NET Server, is even more interesting than its predecessors. Although most Longhorn server-specific features remain a mystery, many of the release's client features are important to the enterprise. Chief among these features is a new SQL Server-based file system called the Universal Data Store (formerly code-named Storage+). The store will obscure the physical location of files and folders and present a simpler, more logical way to store user data. According to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, you shouldn't think of the store as a file system anymore: It's just a data bucket.

 

Longhorn users will be able to use XML-based SQL queries to search for data. And they'll be able to send search requests remotely, giving this technology many benefits beyond the desktop. Microsoft is working to consolidate its data stores using the next generation of SQL Server, code-named Yukon. Longhorn and the next generation of Microsoft Exchange Server and AD will be based on the Yukon data store, so administrators and users will be able to query these disparate data sources at the same time. Currently, the Windows file system, AD store, Exchange Server mailboxes, and SQL Server databases are separate data buckets: Although custom solutions exist for aggregating searches of these stores, this functionality will soon be a feature of the OS.

 

However, the inclusion of Yukon technology in Longhorn will delay the OS's release until late 2003 or early 2004; it was originally expected in late 2002 or early 2003.