Template talk:File systems

Formatting

Any chance that ugly 'group 1' could be gotten rid of? I mean, if you're going to spam it over all concerned articles, it would be nice if it were finished first. --Gwern (contribs) 16:00 6 February 2010 (GMT)

Not created or spammed by me (please note), but I have tidied the template up a bit to address this and some other shortcomings. — Richardguk (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better Formatting

Take a look at the Russian version [[http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Шаблон:Файловые системы]]. The layout is very nice.

However, I'm not vary good at navboxes, so I don't know how to do this.

I've translated the titles in the side blocks:

------------|
            |
            |
            |---------------------|
    Disk    | Optical Disks       |
            |---------------------|
            | Flash Drives/SSD    |
            |---------------------|
            | Storage Area Network|
------------|---------------------|
            |
Network     |
            |
------------|
            |
            |-----------|
Specialized | Virtual   |
            |-----------|
            | Encrypted |
            |-----------|

76.243.106.37 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating display text

There are two different file systems listed as ZFS, zFS (z/OS file system) and OpenZFS, that are distinguished only by case. Is that appropriate? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the all-caps ZFS has two pages - Oracle ZFS and OpenZFS. Both are derived from the original Solaris ZFS, which was, at one point, open sourced by Sun Microsystems as part of OpenSolaris. Oracle then closed the source again, so we have both derivatives of the open-sourced Solaris code, such as Illumos and OpenZFS, and Oracle's closed-source Solaris, including Oracle ZFS. Guy Harris (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What distinguishes "Flash memory and SSD" file systems from other file systems?

The template puts APFS, FAT, exFAT, TFAT, EROFS, F2FS, JFS, and NVFS into that subcategory, with CHFS, JFFS, JFFS2, LogFS, NILFS, NILFS2, YAFFS, and UBIFS being in a sub-subcategory called "host-side wear leveling".

The ones in the top-level "Flash memory and SSD" are a mix of newer file systems that may have been designed for a world in which flash memory is frequently used for storage, but that aren't flash-only, such as APFS, and file systems that were not originally designed in that world but that are also used on flash storage, such as JFS (not to be confused with JFFS or JFFS2) and FAT. However, Apple shipped machines with flash storage before they released APFS, so HFS+ would also be in the "file systems that were not originally designed in that world but that are also used on flash storage" category - what makes JFS and FAT special here?

And, if the log-structured file systems are in the "host-side wear leveling" category because updating a file, or file metadata, isn't done by overwriting blocks, but by writing out the new version of the data or metadata to newly-allocated blocks, wouldn't any copy-on-write file system fit in that category? Guy Harris (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]