Re: Filesystems (was My First Computer)

[Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>]

CBFalconer wrote:
> 
> Glen wrote:
> > CBFalconer wrote:
> > > Glen wrote:
> > >
> > > ... snip ...
> > >
> > >>I worked at a windows only PC shop for a very short time recently.  For
> > >>example some Windows PC hardware techs will not know what you mean if
> > >>you refer to the "filesystem".  They know "FAT", "FAT32", and "NTFS" but
> > >>they may not know a filesystem is a general concept that most OS have.
> > >>One guy was talking about Unix (which he probably has only read about
> > >>not used) and refered to the unix filesystem as "Unix NTFS"!!
> > >>
> > >>God help him get a clue!  Unix predates NT by about two decades.  They
> > >>did not copy NTFS, NTFS copied unix.  [NTFS uses the same basic method
> > >>to access files as the standard unix machine does]
> > >>
> > >
> > > I have the impression that the unique thing about NTFS is the
> > > database treatment of the filesystem proper, with 'transactions'
> > > protecting the critical relationships.  At least according to what
> > > I read about it six to eight years ago.
> > >
> > > This explains, to me, why it is easy to provide r/o access to an
> > > NTFS system, but hard to provide write access.
> >
> > Nah... I've seen at least an ntfs go bad.  Its just a normal filesystem.
> >
> > They do have a file system with transactions now.  They were not the
> > first to get this either.
> 
> Not according to Helen Custer in "Inside the Windows NT
> Filesystem", 1994, ISBN 1-55615-660-X.  I have no direct
> experience.
> 
[not topposted due to user request]
AIX has had a "journaled file system" (JFS) for years, and I'd have to
assume they weren't the first.  It has recently been ported to OS/2.