*Blocks your path*

*Blocks your path*

That's some nice data you got there, shame if something happened to it.

Attached: Hard-Disk.png (500x374, 23K)

everything is in da cloud bitch

Attached: 1435304264638.jpg (480x639, 183K)

Why does NTFS exist?

its fast

I survived Btrfs. you don't scare me

Because it works, barely, so Microsoft can't be arsed to change it. Also one of its worst problems (the tendency it had to get fragmented, fucking up sequential reads) is a non-issue with SSDs.

>nice ext2 you got there
>o look a wild update is attacking
>nice ext3 you got there
>o look a wild...

They put an awful lot of effort into ReFS.

It's not through lack of trying, it's through lack of success of the successor.

come at me bro

Attached: lto5tape.jpg (309x309, 13K)

NTFS is so bad I can build a business out of recovering NTFS files for plebs who don't know shit.

>Tfw DAR file with par2cmdline 2% on tape

Attached: 1518907573747.jpg (1080x1312, 93K)

Why would anyone ever need a file bigger than 4Gb?

Attached: how-to-create-fat32-partition-on-external-hard-drive-1.jpg (575x386, 37K)

>They put an awful lot of effort into ReFS.
They really haven't, they've been working on it since the days of Vista, but they focused their efforts on making their UI uglier and less intuitive, instead of making a Copy on Write error checking filesystem.

How else can i store a pic of your mother?

>>>/reddit/
but nice

Attached: 1517071226477.jpg (419x483, 23K)

ReFS was never intended as a general-purpose replacement, they didn't even bother adding it to the client versions of Windows initially (and later actually removed some of that support).

Stay back. I swear to God I'll fucking do it!

Attached: FN8-ZFS1.png (491x347, 35K)

They where working on a NTFS successor since the early Longhorn days, with WinFS
Shit didn't work out, but ReFS wasn't being developed in it's current form until Win 8, picking up pieces from NTFS, WinFS and Windows Home Server Storage Spaces

The truth is, I've never lost an NTFS except when I Linux distro installer decided to destroy my partition table. I got really good at rebuilding them by hand, since Linux did it on nearly every install, and only recently (this decade) stopped regularly trashing MBRs.

Yeah, it's not bad for a 25 year-old file system. I wonder what happens to a 25yo *nixy FS if I just... turn the computer off...

Oops, beaten to it...

While hoping and praying that the plebs don't find the endless stream of tools that will do it for them for free.

WinFS was just layered on top of NTFS - it wasn't a file system in of itself (FS stood for "future storage"), it was a metadatabase.

lol, to be fair, the first PC I had with a HDD used fat32 and it was a 2.7GB HDD

Sorry NTFS, I don't store my data on you.

>I wonder what happens to a 25yo *nixy FS if I just... turn the computer off...
Nothing really, unless you were actively writing/copying then that specific data can be at loss. Quite the same as NTFS.
I still use filesystems from over 30 years ago.

As was well-known at the time, *nixy FSs had a tendency to destroy themselves if you hit the big red button.

As you've outed yourself as a LARPer, a history lesson is in order: you see, UNIX came from larger machines, with assumed levels of redundancy and backup (things you didn't - and still don't - find on micros) - and they took "advantage" of this by keeping way more FS metadata in memory than they should have.

Which of course, lead to the results above. To be fair, the FS wasn't actually that hard to rebuild once the system came back up... but often, you'd render the machine unbootable, and out came your recovery media.

Attached: 1517540096053.png (400x400, 223K)

You realize 25 years ago was 1993?
You didn't specify that you're talking about some early UNIX gear, hence I was talking more about SGI, RS/6000, SPARCstation, VAXstation and non-UNIX, like Amiga, Macintosh and their affinitive filesystems.
It's pretty weird to call someone a LARPer when you can still own and use this hardware and software easily these days like I do, hence I said I still use them.

FUCKING WINBTRFS DEV

movies are bigger than 4gb

Wait what's wrong with NTFS? I heard that Windows 95 used FAT32, so you couldn't even add permissions to your porn folders. Mom could easily see what you've been up to. Plus what's wrong with being able to compress or encrypt a whole volume? That's some pretty handy stuff.

Attached: 21558731_1907424276246960_3468086330264160884_n.jpg (259x454, 13K)

Oh... I don't know...

Attached: Not fur fucking Yifffagging Yify.png (982x489, 31K)

Wikipedia tells me that it was last updated in 2001. As you'd expect, it's lacking many features that come standard in a modern filesystem. Bit rot and fragmentation are both big issues.

Shit tier movie anyway

owo

obvious b8 but
> what is movie
> what is ISO
> what is .ZIP
> what is file produced by rendering / montage / edition software before you export
So yeah, NTFS *must* be used by anyone who works on media or watches movies or is doing computer OS replacements. Nothing much to see here.

>New Technology File System
xDDDD

Attached: 1514718504798.jpg (882x797, 105K)

I thought fragmentation is an issue only when you lack free space?

That's always the case. NTFS is just especially bad about it.