What is Digg?140 Comments
- Bowie, on 07/02/2009, -4/+129HOOORAY! I can't wait to use one of the worst, most poorly designed, inefficient, restrictive, wasteful, and fragmentation-happy filesystem designs ever created -- One so bad, one is left to wonder if it was *intentionally* created to suck, or just sucked by accident. Even committees of committees couldn't design something as singularly bad as FAT.
Most people, even Comp Sci 101 students, upon examination of how FAT works, come away with the same impression.. "I could have sat down and penned out a better spec in 5 minutes". And you'd be right.
For God's sake, let FAT die. Move on, already. You seriously have no idea how much nicer the world would be if we got our data off archaic and horrifically inefficient storage that was bad even by early 80's standards. - Bowie, on 07/02/2009, -4/+103I'm probably going to get bombarded by M$ fanboys asking me to explain why FAT is so popular if it sucks so bad, so, here's just one example.
When you save a file in a FAT filesystem, your file will be written to the first available spot on the platter. This is fine if you're just writing one file after another after another, since the next file will just be a little bit after the end of the last file. No fragmentation. But what happens when you delete a file in FAT? It marks those areas as available. So. Suppose you write another file -- surprise, it's the same algorithm -- Your file is written to the first available spot on the platter, i.e. at least part of your file is written into the empty hole left behind by the deleted file...If that file you're writing is larger than the hole, that file becomes immediately fragmented. Even if you have gigabytes upon gigabytes of completely free space elsewhere on the platter, that file you just wrote is going to be fragmented eight ways to sunday, a little bit written here, a little bit written there.. One part of the file rests in the spot where the deleted file used to be, while the other part of the file is located elsewhere. Now, multiply this process by several hundred thousand times. Files are written and deleted all the time. Before you know it, every damn file you're writing is spread out like buckshot on a platter, and it takes a relatively enormous amount of time for a drive head to seek to every single one of those locations, picking up fragments of that lovely Excel spreadsheet you spent hours working on. Everything, from the smallest file to the biggest, is intertwined like a rats nest. To read a 1MB file, your drive is going to need to seek to probably 1,000 different locations on the platter, read a few KB, then waste more time moving the head to a different location to read a few more KB, on and on and on. Even when heavilly cached, this method of retrieval is insanely poor from a performance standpoint. It's inefficient as hell.
Now, compare this to how Unix filesystems handle the job. Suppose we start again with a completely clean disk. When you write a dozen files to platter, the locations of those files are intentionally spread as far apart as possible, to prevent the possibility of overlap. File, after file, after file, aftrer file is written out, and all that changes is just the distance between files. This method gives you near-zero fragmentation, extremely fast access times, and extremely fast I/O rates, since the read/write head isn't wasting time jitterbugging, flying around the platter like it's on crystal meth. As a result, fragmentation is only a problem in Unix when you have filesystems that are near-full -- Only THEN does a file have to be chopped up and spread around the platter where empty spaces can still be found. The "seek" is the primary enemy in any form of storage -- How long it takes the read head to travel to the point where the data you want is.
On a modern HD, your seek times will vary in and around the neighborhood of 5ms or so. 5 milliseconds is a ***** eternity compared to the time it takes to read and funnel that data to a controller. For best performance, you want a filesystem that spends as little time as possible in a seeking state.
If reading data were likened to listening to the radio, FAT is an AM station where your favorite song is interrupted every 3 seconds by a half hour block of commercials. Just don't do it. At every possible opportunity, you should avoid FAT, in all of its forms. That includes NTFS.
Do some reading. It's important. Because no one ***** reads, we're still stuck using a filesystem in 2009 that should have been thrown off the bridge in 1981. - t3rmv3locity, on 07/02/2009, -8/+78***** Microsoft. Standards and interoperability ftw!
- wendall911, on 07/02/2009, -9/+68This appears to be a very creative solution from Tridge. I hope this silences M$ on the issue once and for all.
- Arock66, on 07/02/2009, -1/+37I'm really impressed with the level of passion and detail you've demonstrated. I came into this topic impartial, and now I ***** hate FAT!!
- TheZorch, on 07/02/2009, -2/+33While their at it Linux needs to also dump C# and Mono, anything that Microsoft can use as Patent Infringement leverage against Linux needs to be expunged from the Kernel and all GNU software in general. They cannot be trusted, so don't give them anything they can use against Linux as a weapon.
- wpyh, on 07/02/2009, -1/+30Haha.... Dugg! My favourite part: "we're still stuck using a filesystem in 2009 that should have been thrown off the bridge in 1981"
- inactive, on 07/02/2009, -4/+26there is no need to go on a long rant about the use of m$ either.
- wyrdness, on 07/02/2009, -0/+22Filesystems on removable devices, like sd cards and usb sticks, are almost always FAT32. There really needs to be a new, open and universally used replacement, but there isn't so, for now, we're stuck with FAT.
- 08STI, on 07/02/2009, -6/+27Why would I *ever* want to use FAT?!?! yuck.
- lordmike, on 07/02/2009, -1/+20The patent is on VFAT, not FAT.... and only on the extended filenames... important distinction...
- Myztry, on 07/02/2009, -1/+20Even the Amiga which predated Windows 1.0 had 32 character cased filenames handled by the dos.library which in now way resembled it's archaic namesake.
- mrBitch, on 07/02/2009, -2/+21@ Bowie, RE: " .. Now, compare this to how Unix filesystems handle the job."
That's not fair, Microsoft's implementation always comes off as looking second best when you compare a Windows OS component to a Unix based (or Unix like) OS... - Myztry, on 07/02/2009, -1/+19The guy who wrote the Amiga Disk Operating System (Amiga DOS) did that and much more in a week back in the early 80's. Additionally:
1. You has use of 32 cased character filenames.
2. Multitasking programs could use random access at the same time.
3. The filesystem was driver extensible allowing access to other file formats including PC.
4. Tasks did not stall when one encountered an error (most notable on PC CD's).
5. Caching/write ordering was built into the filesystem.
6. Disk-validator could recover corrupt filesystems without locking the filesystem.
7. 880k could be stored on 720k 3.5 " PC disc due to superior encoding (MFM).
8. Any streaming device could be used (ie. RAM: disc, CON: console, etc.)
9. Low memory footprint. Original 1985 Amiga only had 256k including GFX memory. (entire OS was < 256k)
10. 32 bit OO design when used as a standard Amiga library.
Although I suppose you can't really blame Microsoft altogether. It's not like they wrote DOS, and it's not like DOS was designed as anything other than a Quick and Dirty OS. Perhaps if Microsoft had the talent at the time they could have started off on a better foot. - Protuhj, on 07/02/2009, -2/+19@JQP...
Using a FAT-based filesystem on a modern system is laughable. - smacksaw, on 07/02/2009, -4/+20It's amazing how interoperability goes by the wayside in instances like this. This has the potential to be like ODF.
- 4DFX, on 07/02/2009, -2/+18Hey Tanktunker, I've got the content of your comment patented. Pay me $100 for every letter of I'll sue you. After all, I'm just protecting my rights.
- mrBitch, on 07/02/2009, -4/+20@ spectecjr, RE: " .. Dugg down for the implication that NTFS is a form of FAT - it's not."
Guess what? Vista and Windows 7 still include a defrag utility.
NTFS is almost as bad as FAT when it comes to fragmentation :
http://www.virtualdub.org/blog/pivot/entry.php?id= ...
" .. I started using NTFS on my drives because people said it's less likely to fragment..
What I found was that files are more likely to fragment. Even files copy to a completely empty drive will fragment ... I really don't get why it chooses to fragment the files." - mrBitch, on 07/02/2009, -0/+15Agree with both of you, but the article actually covered this, FTA :
" .. The Linux Foundation says that the best solution at this point is for vendors to ditch FAT and come up with a new vendor-neutral format that can be used without having to pay licensing fees.
Although that might be a viable long-term solution, there is still a clear need to support FAT in Linux today." - 2matrix, on 07/02/2009, -2/+17Ahh, the hypocrisy: Microsoft is always going around destroying or suing small companies for infringing on patents when Microsoft themselves is the world leader in stealing other peoples ideas, technologies, and designs.
- ilgaz, on 07/02/2009, -0/+15once upon a time, MS told the device vendors "FAT is free, use it! we won`t bother with it!". They didn`t see USB keys and portables coming.
If a miracle happens and someone from Linux scene codes a .NET application which does compete directly with Microsoft and performs 2x, 3x faster and more reliable, we would see how MS would act.
They are happy with the fact that Mono will never reach .NET quality or it will never be same version as MS one so they play around with ECMA and ISO. - FurtThePirate, on 07/02/2009, -11/+25M$ needs to lose a few pounds. They're so fat.
- trogdoor, on 07/02/2009, -1/+15"anything that Microsoft can use as Patent Infringement leverage against Linux needs to be expunged from the Kernel and all GNU software in general."
You don't understand how broken the patent system in the U.S. is if you think that is even remotely possible. - misterpottsy, on 07/02/2009, -3/+17FAT= Fragmented All the Time
- Suricou, on 07/02/2009, -1/+15FAT is used because it's the only filesystem which just about everything can read and write. Windows, linux, mac, digital cameras, mp3 players - because of it's long history, FAT is the best choice for interoperability, even if it's inferior in all other ways.
- inactive, on 07/02/2009, -3/+15Bill gate assembled Windows from a library of "off the shelf" technologies. He didn't program ***** and its why Window$ is so costly. MS don't program actual Operating Sytems, they are an advertising company selling collections of technology as a product.
From Networking to Video and even Direct X nothing there is actually Microsofts.
Direct X was game programmers hack to defeat ***** latency on the buffer and IRQs that made keyboard input wait while Microsofts ***** assembled the scripts in RAM to handle it. Basically it got around Windows and shoved ***** in the other way. MS owes its success to multiple hacks written to override or defeat ***** programming. None of the original creators ever saw a cent.
And the frikken address bar in Explorer was licensed which is why it no longer works because the date ran out. RE: Windows XP SP3 and browseui.dll
The new one is busted having been stripped of its core functionality. The old one is 1.6 meg IIRC and the new on is 96kb - mrBitch, on 07/02/2009, -1/+13Mi¢ro$oƒt or Appl€ ?
- ilgaz, on 07/02/2009, -0/+11I am kind of sure that Apple isn`t really happy with OS X FAT either. It is a risk. Apple is also close to Samba community too, all OS X versions come with Samba.
I bet Apple will also adopt this patch somehow. Hope they (Samba) will be careful with license so all vendors (including mighty giant Nokia) can adapt it somehow. World`s number 1 FAT distributor is Nokia in fact if you think about it. Now the Symbian going open source, it makes even less sense.
While on it, Apple iPhone/iPod proved that you can go with your own filesystem (HFS+ which is documented by Apple) and you can still sell devices to be called "easiest to use and integrate". - ilgaz, on 07/02/2009, -0/+11I suspect FAT beats anything in terms of usage ratio. It is in everything starting with 2-3 billion mobile phones. Yes, not all phones can store photos etc but they still use FAT internally. E.g. all devices from Nokia except a couple Linux powered ones.
- Myztry, on 07/02/2009, -0/+11Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer Products copied it from CP/M. And then Microsoft brought it.
When you buy a car with a tick in the engine, it's not your fault either. But then you probably aren't claiming to have created the car regardless of what work you later perform to it. - arcticblue, on 07/02/2009, -0/+11How does this affect SSDs and other flash based storage (SD card in a camera, etc)? Since there is no drive head, would the performance degradation be that noticeable? Not trying to be a smartass; honest question.
- stalky14, on 07/02/2009, -0/+10Don't patents expire anymore?
- Myztry, on 07/02/2009, -2/+12On a further note, the Amiga dos.library took one guy a week to write in BCPL. It was 32 bit, driver extensible, cached and multi-tasking.
If Bill Gates had of been a competent programmer then he would have wrote such systems instead of simply buying in Quick and Dirty OS hacks... - ilgaz, on 07/02/2009, -0/+10Yes, it is globally broken. Justice system is broken too but you don`t make friends with Mafia guys saying "it is broken anyway" right?
- Suricou, on 07/02/2009, -0/+10No way to impliment it in a legally-safe way. But fortunatly it is not so indispensable as FAT.
- benbrooks101, on 07/02/2009, -0/+9I got asked to 'fix' a laptop the other week which had it's hard drive formatted in FAT.
I just sat there thinking how the ***** that could have possibly happened. - Suricou, on 07/02/2009, -0/+9Trogdoor makes a good point. It's standard practice for companies to patent anything and everything they can - almost all applications are granted, even those on the stupid or obvious. Even these bad patents are still powerful weapons, because in a patent infringement case it's often left to the defendant to prove they are not infringing - the legal action can become extremally expensive, making patents a powerful weapon of legal intimidation. And don't expect the court to have even the slightest familiarity with the technology in question.
A good lawyer might be able to get the MS FAT extension patent thrown out - I'm not sure if it works as in trademark law, but their history of deliberatly permitting others to infringe on the patent in order to increase it's popularity could very well be grounds on which the patent should be considered invalid. But, between the months of legal procedings, and MS's inevitable appeal, it could cost many millions of dollars in court and lawyer fees - and that depends on MS actually suing someone willing to defend themselves in court, rather than just settle.
The biotech field is particually famous for this... they have a procedure where they sequence a gene, then patent it before they even have some idea what it actually does - because if they waited until they could work that out, another company might patent it first. - jman583, on 07/02/2009, -2/+11Beside flash drives and SD cards, does anything use FAT nowadays?
- thisthatwhat, on 07/02/2009, -0/+9Agreed. Unfortunately, FAT is the De Facto standard. :(
- sukimashita, on 07/02/2009, -0/+9It's not necessarily to "use" FAT filesystems as your filesystem of choice.
The use of FAT for Linux is rather to satisfy a certain degree of interoperability between platforms/systems for the average user (like almost all USB Sticks you buy or get from a friend probably use FAT, etc.). - inactive, on 07/02/2009, -2/+11"There is no need for the dollar sign when you refer to Microsoft. "
Bull$hit!
emo - Swipecat, on 07/02/2009, -0/+9This access method would only be a problem if you had a FAT filesystem that needed to be accessed by Windows AND an old Msdos AND Linux. And anybody capable of setting up something that convoluted wouldn't have any trouble selecting the full-MS compliance option in the driver -- and the machine would presumably have a valid MS license anyway in those circumstances.
No, this looks like a good solution to me. - warp99, on 07/02/2009, -1/+10"Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary." - Linux Torvalds in reference to HFS+
- mooninite, on 07/02/2009, -0/+8C# may be royalty free, but .NET isn't. Microsoft may desire to file lawsuits against people using the web page based stuff in Mono or other .NET related projects that don't use the official Windows-only .NET binaries.
http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
Don't mind that it's an article by RMS. This time around he makes sense. - Myztry, on 07/02/2009, -1/+9IBM licensed the Amiga GUI (in exchange for Rexx) while partnered with Microsoft working on OS/2. Microsoft's branch of OS/2 then went on to become Windows NT.
Pity they didn't go for some of the other tech like 32 bit multitasking instead of Windows users having to wait a decade for Microsoft to get around to imitating such things.
It was so difficult stepping down from the Amiga OS to Windows OS simply because IBM's mistake allowed Microsoft to ride the wave that was the IBM PC's extensibility. - warp99, on 07/02/2009, -0/+8@arcticblue
While some file systems can offer better throughput then others the difference is negligible with an SSD versus a regular drive. The real difference in throughput is the disk scheduler used. SSDs do not require a disk scheduler. - directrix13, on 07/02/2009, -1/+9The bitching is because the patent system is so broken that it allows stupid BS like this through as a novel invention to begin with.
- NiceGuyVan, on 07/02/2009, -1/+8"@ spectecjr, RE: " .. Dugg down for the implication that NTFS is a form of FAT - it's not."
Guess what? Vista and Windows 7 still include a defrag utility."
That doesn't make it a form of FAT - Tanktunker, on 07/02/2009, -6/+13Honestly I'd say if anyone is deserving of having letters in their name replaced by currency signs it's Apple.
I love my iPod but they will ***** screw you every single time they get the chance, and their products are expensive as it is. - Suricou, on 07/02/2009, -0/+7Flash drives and SD cards are quite enough to render it a non-optional component for ny useable OS.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 142 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is