Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Looking Back At Microsoft's Rocky History In Storage Tech

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the would-you-like-to-buy-some-stones? dept.

Data Storage 241

nk497 writes "Following the demise of Windows Home Server's Drive Extender, Jon Honeyball looks back on Microsoft's long, long list of storage disasters, from the dodgy DriveSpace to the Cairo Object File System, and on to the debacle that was WinFS."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Missing ADS (4, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184154)

I would have to include NTFS alternate data streams as well. It sounded like a good idea, but in practice it just left huge security holes.

Re:Missing ADS (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184868)

ADS was introduced for one reason: to allow NT servers to support Apple clients, without the server needing to do some crazy transforms (like MacOS does when writing to a FAT drive, which make it trivial to break the files if you touch them with a non-Mac system). The problem was that most of the rest of the system was not updated - it was an operating system feature written for a single application, which is a pretty good way of introducing security holes.

Re:Missing ADS (3, Interesting)

bit01 (644603) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185054)

ADS was introduced for one reason: to allow NT servers to support Apple clients, without the server needing to do some crazy transforms

Umm, ADS is doing crazy transforms. Some would say giving it a different name and use different OS calls to access different data is worse than using different names and the same OS call to access the different data.

Some people, programmers or otherwise, can't tell the difference between giving something a different name/label and actually doing something different.

This problem is endless in the computer software industry, mainly because of the amorphous nature of software. e.g. redoing OS apps inside a web browser or reinventing file systems inside databases or reinventing hierarchical file systems inside XML and calling it all "new" and "innovative". While there is some invention going on in web browsers, databases and XML, most is just reinventing the wheel. Such software is often necessary for compatibility reasons but recognizing that it is a compatibility layer and putting that compatibility layer at the appropriate interface is the important skill.

Or in other words meta-data is data. Sorry, but until you understand that in your bones you are not a decent programmer.

---

Has the Least Patentable Unit reached zero yet?

Re:Missing ADS (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185342)

Umm, ADS is doing crazy transforms. Some would say giving it a different name and use different OS calls to access different data is worse than using different names and the same OS call to access the different data.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't applications access alternate streams by doing something so simple as accessing a different filename?

that's news to me (1)

doperative (1958782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185558)

"ADS was introduced for one reason: to allow NT servers to support Apple clients"

That's news to me, do you have citations to verifiable historical records that say this?

Honeyball: DriveSpace wasn't DOUBLESPACE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35185294)

Honeyball made a mistake: DriveSpace wasn't the problem in DOS 6.x... DOUBLESPACE was.

The original version of the compression system DOS 6.x had was called DOUBLESPACE & DriveSpace was the corrected version & it was actually QUITE competitive with Stacker (I used both products, Stacker &/or MS DOS with DoubleSpace in v 6.0, & DriveSpace in v. 6.2 - 6.22 of DOS, as well as Stacker from version 6 - iirc, 8, to compare them both...).

APK

P.S.=> Apparently, for all his ranting on the history of Microsoft's storage efforts, Honeyball's "history" isn't 100% accurate (unless he's from an alternate dimension/reality that is, ala "Bizarro World") either... & this is what you get with journalists who are really only that: Writers, instead of being TRUE "Computer Sciences oriented afficianados"...

What I am also additionally "astounded by", is that nobody else here has caught that... but, then again? Most of the folks that seem to hang around /. the past few years now are too young to have even put their hands on the things that "historical critique" type articles use as examples... & my having to cite this needed correction, first here, exemplifies this apparently... apk

Re:Honeyball: DriveSpace wasn't DOUBLESPACE (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185688)

Honeyball made a mistake: DriveSpace wasn't the problem in DOS 6.x... DOUBLESPACE was.

The original version of the compression system DOS 6.x had was called DOUBLESPACE & DriveSpace was the corrected version & it was actually QUITE competitive with Stacker (I used both products, Stacker &/or MS DOS with DoubleSpace in v 6.0, & DriveSpace in v. 6.2 - 6.22 of DOS, as well as Stacker from version 6 - iirc, 8, to compare them both...).

APK

P.S.=> Apparently, for all his ranting on the history of Microsoft's storage efforts, Honeyball's "history" isn't 100% accurate (unless he's from an alternate dimension/reality that is, ala "Bizarro World") either... & this is what you get with journalists who are really only that: Writers, instead of being TRUE "Computer Sciences oriented afficianados"...

What I am also additionally "astounded by", is that nobody else here has caught that... but, then again? Most of the folks that seem to hang around /. the past few years now are too young to have even put their hands on the things that "historical critique" type articles use as examples... & my having to cite this needed correction, first here, exemplifies this apparently... apk

Thanks for correcting. I am old enough to remember this :) It was quite a scandal in how it destroyed data and later caught at putting out of business Stacker (despite MS losing the law suit. Like most people, I didn't use this technology long as the compression was a pain in the butt, used lots of resources, and after the initial release data loss issues left me not thinking it was worth the trouble...

Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (0, Troll)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184188)

Seriously, drive extender's "features" that Microsoft couldn't get to work right include stuff that has been standard in the Unix world for over a decade. Tell me again why people even bother with windows, especially a "server" edition? It's not nearly as functional as Linux but you get to pay a ton of money for it and get DRM as a bonus! Wow, where do I sign up?

Microsoft's new slogan: We are pushing the boundaries of what the rest of the computing world was doing 20 years ago.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (4, Interesting)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184244)

Because Windows Server has Active Directory and Group Policies. and Linux doesn't. Thats what sells Windows Server 2000/2003/2008. When there was a proposal to incorporate OpenLDAP auto confguration policy into KDE - it was rejected. That is why Linux lost the war for the Enterprise desktop.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (0)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184802)

So IOW it sells to people who don't understand how to manage users and groups?

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184836)

Group Policies allow for LDAP based control of the Windows System Registry.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (3, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184892)

There is no advantage to "control of the Windows System Registry" except for windows users, so your logic appears a bit circular. You do know that there are Linux LDAP servers, right? Because so often discussing technology with microsofties is like trying to talk about good food with McD's addicts. They often have no frame of reference with which to discuss these things.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184954)

Let me give you an example. Lets say that I had a Linux OpenLDAP Server with Heimdal Kerberos (I do.) and I wanted to make it such that whenever a specific user logged in, he/she/it saw a specific background, and had specific Mail settings, and had specific stuff setup for them, and I wanted this to follow them everywhere. There is no facility in KDE to do that. I cannot tell KDE: "This user has this background wallpaper, their FireFox home page is: www.egroupware.com Their start up sound is iora.wav, etc." I can set that up on a per machine basis, but I can't store that information in OpenLDAP so they can use regardless of what their machine is, because KDE doesn't know to retrieve that information.

In Windows this is called Group Policy.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (2)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184988)

Surely that sort of thing has been done in UNIX using .rc files and other . configuration files in the user's home directory since the mid-70s, or does KDE ignore those?

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185090)

You're right, he does appear to be describing something we easily achieve with a crontab entry, or by manually using rsync.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (4, Informative)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185166)

Nobody is saying you can't do that stuff on *NIX but its hard to do that on stand alone machines. When you are talking about shared machines or terminals where everything can be handled with NIS and home directories reside on an NFS share used by all hosts the facilities to manage user experience exist.

As soon as you start having laptops and desktops running all around the office you can't manage the settings the user is talking about anymore. Yes you can do it at deployment time. Sure you could write init scripts to go fetch and overwrite/update rc files and stuff but you'd have to do all of it yourself and it would be a security nightmare to try and get correct without putting a lot of resources into it.

GPOs make it really easy change all the CSRs home pages to the new customer service portal, and set all the sales reps wall paper to the latest product sheet instead of their embarrassing personal photos any time its needed. It also makes it possible to do things like yes your screen saver is going to turn on and the desktop will be locked after 15min, no exceptions. Sometimes that sort of thing gets required for PayCardIndustry rules and the like, and those things change every now and then.

Got a way for me to change your screen saver settings on every Ubuntu box in the company? Yes I know I can run a sed script to go into each home directory and alter the config file for whatever desktop environment is being used, I still have to find away to do it to every box.

Trust me I have been doing this for some years and this is one place where Windows gets it right, so right in fact that it in some ways justifies the use of Windows even though its otherwise a really inferior platform.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185228)

Got a way for me to change your screen saver settings on every Ubuntu box in the company?

Are you joking? If I want to lock down and sync desktop configurations for all users/workstations or for groups of users/workstations in any *nix it could not possibly be easier, more reliable, transparent, or trouble-free using simple command-line tools . And maintaining that is as easy as invoking the contab editor.

I'm beginning to think the people who say that AD is a kludge for dealing with the registry are probably pretty much correct. It doesn't appear to offer much in the way of real benefits except to people who already use windows.

BTW, you know how I get my users (nearly all of whom were migrated from windows) to run my scripts? I give them an icon to click on :)

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35185404)

HellOOO! "Active directiry" and "Group policies" are ways in which windows is trying to tack on the features UNIX has built-in. That is all. In Linux we create custom groups with custom perms and add the users we want to have that profile to those groups. It's secure, simple, elegant, and built-in to the OS. Windows doesn't have that; the closest you can get is ADS.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185626)

Right its a crontab entry, fine easy. Now change the value on all systems a to something else a year later. Ahh not so easy now is it.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35185680)

Wow, you really don't know anything at all about being a linux admin, do you? :D

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185256)

No, The Windows world had that way of thinking with Roaming Mandatory Profiles where "System Policies" were "files" and "scripts" copied from shares. It was utter catastrophe. The Unix 'copy the rc folder method is NT4 level thinking and not Acceptable in today's world. If it is to be acceptable in today's world it must be database driven and granular. This is why MySQL is so popular, and this is why Linux's directory services have gained no market or mind share.

The best thing anyone could do is force KDE and Gnome to adopt OpenLDAP.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (2)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185346)

No, The Windows world had that way of thinking with Roaming Mandatory Profiles where "System Policies" were "files" and "scripts" copied from shares. It was utter catastrophe.

Yes, well it works very well in the *nix world -- the NT failures you cite do not affect us at all.

The Unix 'copy the rc folder method is NT4 level thinking and not Acceptable in today's world.

Huh? No-one can seriously brag about the *registry*, it's the Achilles' Heel of windows! This can only mean you've never seriously used any other OS.

If it is to be acceptable in today's world it must be database driven and granular. This is why MySQL is so popular, and this is why Linux's directory services have gained no market or mind share.

MS has indoctrinated you well, but you don't appear to know enough about *nix to really participate in this discussion. Of course, it can easily be argued that I do not know enough about windows to participate in it, so perhaps we're even :)

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185396)

I'm a staunch Linux User. I hate Windows. But I also know LDAP is a good idea.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185432)

Microsoft neither invented nor has a monopoly on the ability to use LDAP.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184960)

So IOW it sells to people who don't understand how to manage users and groups?

Group Policy is a very powerful tool for applying policy rules across an entire organization. It has very little to do with managing users and groups, other than that the criteria for who or what the policies apply to is often based on membership in a group.

I've worked with Unix and Linux on and off over the years, and I am not aware of an equivalent in the Linux world, at least not a standard package that works on multiple major distributions. Obviously it's possible to build a crappy quasi-equivalent for one's own organization out of shell scripts, but it would be a lot of work to build and maintain, and it wouldn't be as flexible or as reliable.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185112)

Obviously it's possible to build a crappy quasi-equivalent for one's own organization out of shell scripts, but it would be a lot of work to build and maintain, and it wouldn't be as flexible or as reliable.

Oh I don't know about that. Cron and rsync are pretty well proven to be quite reliable and flexible. Of course it does require some competence, no pointy-clicky...

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (3, Interesting)

kantos (1314519) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185400)

Honestly.... this argument is stupid, Group Policy arose because on Windows everything is a COM object with an ACL and it was neigh impossible to manage to provide even a modicum of security without some sort of system policy at a high level. Linux of course doesn't need this because it operates in a fundamentally different manner where everything is a file and the file system permissions (group based) determine if a is executable or not. Thus the Linux kernel doesn't need to know what specific COM+ handler needs to be loaded, but rather if a file is a supported executable format or not, and what to do from there. Both systems have fundamental advantages, Linux is deceptively simple leading to a power on the command line that is daunting for many users. Whereas Windows can be easy worked with to extend using COM and the registry (The registry was never designed to hold most of the crap that people shove in there... it was designed to be a central repository of information for COM objects).

If anything this model shows MS's lack of foresight into the importance of networking and their focus on the single standalone box.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184944)

ADS is mostly a convoluted attempt to control a problem that doesn't exist in UNIX/Linux/Mac - the Windows Registry - which is a problem totally of Microsoft's own doing.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

PixetaledPikachu (1007305) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184266)

Seriously, drive extender's "features" that Microsoft couldn't get to work right include stuff that has been standard in the Unix world for over a decade. Tell me again why people even bother with windows, especially a "server" edition?

To name some of them: Active Directory & Exchange, Sharepoint, and ProClarity/Performance Point.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184290)

What good is any sort of enterprise policy on an OS thats trivial to hack? Not to mention that all that group policy bullshit is proprietary, they don't even use open authentication methods, NTLM is just WAITING to be hacked.

There's a reason Google has banned the use of the toy OS for development machines, they don't want their information being stolen by hackers. There are also other, easier ways to do what group policy does. I never found it to be even remotely useful, or even remotely make up for all the extra time necessary to manage Windows machines over their Linux and Mac counterparts.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184344)

Do you change defaults and use outdated NTLM in an enterprise environment instead of recommended Kerberos?

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184406)

What good is any sort of enterprise policy on an OS thats trivial to hack?

It isn't if the sysadmin and netadmin know what the hell they're doing.

Not to mention that all that group policy bullshit is proprietary, they don't even use open authentication methods, NTLM is just WAITING to be hacked.

Because MS has never implemented Kerberos, right? And most companies don't give a shit if MS has proprietary bullshit if it has all the features they need, like the aforementioned group policy, Exchange, Active Directory, etc.

There's a reason Google has banned the use of the toy OS for development machines, they don't want their information being stolen by hackers.

Because external threats are the only kind that exist! Oh, wait, there's also employee ineptitude, like plugging in a petri dish of a flash drive and opening up more gaping backdoors than you'll find at a massive gay orgy. Guess what? That's far less of a concern on a server as your sysadmin likely isn't going to be that stupid.

There are also other, easier ways to do what group policy does. I never found it to be even remotely useful, or even remotely make up for all the extra time necessary to manage Windows machines over their Linux and Mac counterparts.

Let me guess: The servers you've worked with never served more than 30 people, tops. Come back when you've actually worked in an enterprise setting. I'm not a huge fan of Windows Server (it can be a bitch to administer), but quite frankly, it does a lot of things far better as a workgroup server than Linux or OS X unless you can afford some in-house developers.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184792)

Because external threats are the only kind that exist! Oh, wait, there's also employee ineptitude, like plugging in a petri dish of a flash drive and opening up more gaping backdoors than you'll find at a massive gay orgy. Guess what? That's far less of a concern on a server as your sysadmin likely isn't going to be that stupid.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I find it hilarious that you use this example as an example SUPPORTING Microsoft. You are aware that it was ONLY FUCKING MICROSOFST that had autolaunch and until extremely recently that it was even possible to completely disable it. Real operating systems(and not toys like the ones Microsoft makes) have had ways to disable that shit for eons before Microsoft even realized it was possible. If you are trusting critical data to a Microsoft product you are asking to be hacked.

Eat your words... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35185190)

"You are aware that it was ONLY FUCKING MICROSOFST that had autolaunch and until extremely recently that it was even possible to completely disable it. Real operating systems(and not toys like the ones Microsoft makes) have had ways to disable that shit for eons before Microsoft even realized it was possible." - by antifoidulus (807088) on Saturday February 12, @05:30AM (#35184792) Homepage Journal

USB Autorun Attacks Against Linux:

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/02/07/1742246/USB-Autorun-Attacks-Against-Linux

---

"If you are trusting critical data to a Microsoft product you are asking to be hacked." - by antifoidulus (807088) on Saturday February 12, @05:30AM (#35184792) Homepage Journal

Oh, do you mean a "real operating system", like Linux? See the url link I posted above then... & think again!

(Linux is going to see a huge rash of vulnerabilities crop up the more it gains market share/mindshare on the part of users at both corporate and home user levels... how can I say this? Look @ MacOS X - the moment it gained market share, up went the number of attacks on it & vulnerabilities found + abused vs. it... look @ ANDROID (which is Linux) being attacked week after week now that it has "top spot" in terms of usage in the SmartPhone world!)

APK

P.S.=> So much for your statement of "Real operating systems(and not toys like the ones Microsoft makes) have had ways to disable that shit for eons before Microsoft even realized it was possible." though - because THAT makes you eat your words, easily... apk

Re:Eat your words... apk (0)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185318)

Nope, you fail it. Linux auto-run was actually possible to totally turn off, fuck it's not even on by default. Microsoft's pathetic excuse for an "operating system" didn't actually allow you to totally turn off autorun, you could disable parts of it, but it was impossible to actually completely turn it off. Nice try Microsoft shill, but you fail it. And also, the number of attacks, even considering the market share, against OS X are a drop in the bucket compared to the cum-bucket that is Windows. Why do you think Google banned windows from it's networks? Because Windows "security" is a joke and always has been a joke and always will be a joke. But Microsoft's repeated failures are finally catching up to it and it won't be relevant in a decade anyway, so...

Eat your words, yet again... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35185588)

"Nope, you fail it. Linux auto-run was actually possible to totally turn off, fuck it's not even on by default." - by antifoidulus (807088) on Saturday February 12, @07:31AM (#35185318) Homepage Journal

Then, why on earth would the Linux camp have to have it turned off then, by default? You're not even making sense.

---

"Microsoft's pathetic excuse for an "operating system" didn't actually allow you to totally turn off autorun, you could disable parts of it, but it was impossible to actually completely turn it off" - by antifoidulus (807088) on Saturday February 12, @07:31AM (#35185318) Homepage Journal

You can disable it, easily enough:

---

How to disable the Autorun functionality in Windows

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/967715

---

(AND, once it's disabled, it's not going to work against you (or, for you) anyhow - period!)...

APK

P.S.=> Given the facts above, how can you say I "failed" here then? ... apk

Re:Eat your words, yet again... apk (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185648)

First and foremost, no, until recently it was IMPOSSIBLE to COMPLETELY disable auto-run, Microsoft's pathetic security really shown through there. Secondly you have shown you know absolutely NOTHING about Linux. Unlike Microsoft there is no Linux "monolith" outside the kernel(and even then). The kernel has nothing to do with autorun. And furthermore, on distros that do enable auto-run it's insanely simple not only to disable autorun, but to remove the functionality from the system. Try removing, not just disabling, autorun from Windows. Go ahead, I can wait..... So yeah, you obviously need to use a real operating system and realize how absolutely primitive Microsoft is before saying anything more to expose your own ignorance.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185208)

Actually Microsoft only released it as an update to XP recently, to change the default setting. You have always been able to turn off autorun by modifying the registry directly and there have been group policy templates to do it almost as long.

If anyone wanted auto run off in an enterprise setting it was trivial to do, you just through the switch in GP or put a couple lines in the logon script if you were not using GPOs for some reasons like you were in a non domain environment or whatever.

The only persons experience being changed by that recent update is Joe Sixpack's who was not going to edit his registry. As far as anyone in industry if they had any clue how to do their job as an admin this has always been a non issue.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184622)

What good is any sort of enterprise policy on an OS thats trivial to hack?

Because not everyone in your organisation is a hacker? Group policies are applied for the most part to bring idiots in line with company security policy. This is similar to blocking traffic to certain ports on the firewall. It stops a few people from firing up MSN at work, but does nothing to the guy with a Linux box somewhere off in the internet providing SSH tunnel for endless amusement. That said these single "hackers" of corporate policy are easy enough to keep an eye on.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184866)

drive extender's "features" that Microsoft couldn't get to work right include stuff that has been standard in the Unix world for over a decade

"Drive extender" in WHS is, essentially, RAID that can be hot-extended - you plug a new hard drive into your server, and your storage (which shows up as a single disk) grows immediately. I don't know about the Unix world, but I certainly haven't seen any Linux distro that was configured that way. Can you name some names?

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185620)

LVM is supported by every major distro out of the box. And it actually WORKS, which is more then you can say for Drive Extender.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (4, Insightful)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184872)

Please name a linux based solution, apart from 100% proprietary Unraid, which allow for me to do what drive extender does. I'm serious. I refuse to install WHS, and thus far the closest I can find is going Unraid, which feels dirty to me, or nexentastor.

What drive extender does, in a nutshell:
-all of your hard drives show up as one big storage pool.
-100% of disparate drive sizes can be used (excluding copies/parity obviously). So if you have 3 old 1tb drives, 2 old 1.5tb drives, and 1 2tb drive you'll have 8gb of storage
-configurable redundancy such that any single disk failure, no matter the size, all files are still available
-if two drives fail, you only lose the files that were on those two drives, not the entire array
-take any one drive out of the array, plug it into ANY windows vista or higher PC (new NTFS version), have access to all the files that were stored in that drive.
-add a drive, get that much more storage (excluding copies/parity obviously)

ZFS comes DAMNED close, but you cannot grow the number of disks in a raidz array, you have to add an entire extra array (meaning 3+ disks) to the pool. You also lose the entire array if 2 (or 3 with raidz2, or 4 with raidz3) disks die, and cannot have direct file access just by plugging in 1 disk of the array, but that honestly doesn't bother me that much.

Oh, and ZFS isn't on linux except through fuse.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35185030)

Man, UNIX systems have been doing that for almost 50 years - never heard of LVM?

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185218)

I've heard of LVM, and used it in all of my linux servers. It's a life saver when it comes to dynamically resizing storage pools. But it's in no way comparable to drive extender. Read the post you replied to and tell me which of the points LVM ticks off. I know which ones, but i'll leave it to you to decide.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (1, Informative)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185130)

Yup, LVM FTW. you fail it.

I especially like your #1:
-all of your hard drives show up as one big storage pool.

Not only does EVERY unix do that, it's the ONLY way it can be done. Mixing up the logical and physical partitions in such a convoluted way is a Microsoft only type of deal. Drive letters were thrown out in real operating systems decades ago. Again, Windows: Failing today to do what Unix successfully did decades ago.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (4, Informative)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185214)

Sweet, so LVM provides redundancy? Or I still need to use software raid for that, which reqires all disks to be the same size in order to get full usage out of them?

And if I create an LVM array, and 1 disk dies, I no longer lose everything, the filesystem is easily mounutable and I only lose the files that were on that disk and weren't redundant (which you've also assured me LVM handles for you?)

And who mentioned drive letters? You're telling me that every unix will combine all of my storage devices into one pool, as opposed to having to mount them discretely in mount points? So if I have 5 disks, by default all of my files, regardless of location in the filesystem, will get nicely distributed across said disks? That's great to know as well! Last time I checked (about 2 seconds ago, from the ubuntu box I'm posting this from) you have to choose a mount point for any volume (logical or physical), and it only provides storage to that section of the filesystem. If my /var/log is full, and I just throw in another 1tb disk, /var/log does not get access to that new storage.

I asked a serious question. I really am interested in a set of technologies that have the same capabilities as unraid (which is linux based but NOT open nor free) and drive extender. LVM and software raid are in no way comparable.

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35185628)

Antifoidulus' zealotry is blinding him to your question

Re:Makes me glad I quit Windows years ago (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185306)

And how many technologies fail on FOSS systems. I just got a patch last year that allowed my wifi to connect in under 5 minutes. While Mac and Windows did it very fast for year. (2002 from my experience). Sure we like to see Microsoft fail because it is a huge company and has a strong foothold in our technology, and during the 90's it seemed to the media it could do no wrong. But looking at it's failures and saying Microsoft is all bad while I zealiously promote an other product ignoring it deficiencies. Is really a stupid idea that doesn't help either side.

What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184194)

I fail to see why the fact that NTFS is still around essentially unchanged is a problem. It serves its purpose well. While MS's internal factionalism has hurt their position in the massive storage arena, the continued stamina of NTFS is a good thing.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184214)

Compared to WinFS, ZFS, and the upcoming BTFS it looks quite dated. Infact NTFS is really HPFS from OS/2 with a few extra features.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (0)

Drakino (10965) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184296)

Sadly NTFS is still behind HPFS in some ways. One major one is data fragmentation. Defragging manually is a joy only NTFS users have, as HPFS really never needed it.

I know a Windows admin by day that is so used to defragging, he bought an OS X defrag utility, because the concept of a filesystem avoiding massive fragmentation was new to him. He was quite shocked when I explained most filesystems don't have the fragmentations issues NTFS does. And informing him HPFS also lacked the need for manual defragging kinda lowered his faith in MIcrosoft a little. They had access to the HPFS tech, and failed to copy it properly into NT.

True Windows only people are interesting when you reveal to them how behind Microsoft is, and always has been. Said admin is slowly dabbling with Unix like systems, with his Mac helping him to dip his toe in while keeping a nice and consistent GUI. His want to explore scripting has him appreciating Unix ways a little more, and now he's also using Powershell. The 20 year late answer from Microsoft to the unix command line toolbox and bash.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184392)

If you think that NTFS-X is somehow more prone to fragmentation than e.g. extX your knowledge about filesystems isn't really good.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (3, Interesting)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184540)

Would you mind explaining carefully and precisely why you think that OS X's filesystem (and others) aren't prone to fragmentation? It's true that many filesystems incorporate techniques to reduce the likelihood and effect of fragmentation, but it still happens, and it's still possible to optimise the position of data on rotating media - as any good defragmenter will do.

Filesystems which claim not to suffer from defragmentation concern me more because people end up not noticing the decrease in performance over time. For a machine not in 24/7 operation, a scheduled defrag run is always a good idea; otherwise, slowly doing the same during less busy moments should be mandatory.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (0)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184962)

Pure MS BS. I have Linux and BSD systems running for years on their original native FS with no more than 4% fragmentation and often mere tenths of a percent for ext3. With NT on NTFS you're lucky to get that out of a fresh install, much less after a defrag.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185528)

You haven't actually answered the question - you could have at least tried to explain how ext3 tries to minimise fragmentation, at which point I'd have given you a list of scenarios where its techniques won't work over time and linked to a few reports about it. Nor does your example of a couple of machines "running for years on their original native FS" tell us anything at all (except maybe that your use is sufficiently light that you've never needed to upgrade). What are the systems doing from day to day?

Finally, do you actually understand what percentage fragmentation represents? IOW, can you think of particular servers which may have horrible performance due to high fragmentation but a very low "percentage fragmented" statistic?

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

markass530 (870112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184220)

it not open source?? Someone more knowledgeable then me on the subject can expand this im sure. I just know that I recently started trying to learn linux, it not being able to read my windows partitions if f'n annoying.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

smi.james.th (1706780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184232)

Linux can actually read NTFS partitions, some don't come with support enabled by default though. Which distro have you got? IIRC, the package that you need is called NTFS-3g. I run Linux Mint, and it works out of the box, so I haven't needed to tinker with it for a while though.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

markass530 (870112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184272)

yea I know about the work around read only solution. It's just horseshit that MS doesn't supply a read/write driver or whatever for every OS. (ubuntu)

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184328)

actually write support has worked in many distributions of linux for years, it's full access at this point, in ubuntu just go to the software center and install ntfs-3g, it will give read and write support.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184420)

I'm so lost. You don't need to install anything to write to an NTFS partition in Ubuntu with a standard LiveCD. I imagine that is true also of an install although I haven't tried a dual-boot in years. I know I personally back up and restore to NTFS disks using GNU/Linux because Microsoft's own operating system fails half the time. It is slow, leads to data loss, and is generally unbearable.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

smi.james.th (1706780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184354)

Um... No, it's not a read-only solution. I've got full read/write on my NTFS. No horses or their respective shit within sight.

here [lmgtfy.com] is even a link to get you started. I wish you all the best.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184386)

I regularly install different distros of *nix on my machines, and I've only found a few that didn't have read/write ntfs support on a fresh install. Now reading ext2/3 filesystems on win7.. (I know there are ext2/3 drivers, but last I checked they borked miserably when installed on win7)

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185206)

You say horseshit, I say it's commonsense that you wouldn't provide a driver for your competitor, so the competitor can peacefully co-exist and read the data in your proprietary partition exclusively for the benefit of your competitor. Microsoft have no vested interest in Linux, there's nothing they can gain from providing support for their file system, and all that would happen is it gives people an option to use a non-microsoft product.

It would be absolute madness to release a driver, let alone dedicate resources to creating one.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (4, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184268)

It's not just closed source, but closed standard. Microsoft keeps the specification officially secret (Though I believe you can see if it you agree to an agreemet saying you won't disclose or actually impliment it). That linux can use NTFS is a tribute to many hours of dedicated reverse-engineering and various tidbits of information that escaped until a full picture could be assembled,

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184712)

Try a more recent version of Ubuntu[from your comment later on/further down].

I run Kubuntu, which is Debian-based Ubuntu with a KDE user interface, instead of Ubuntu default Gnome desktop envoirment/user interface.
The full read and write ability for NTFS has been present in the default install since 8.04, IRC.
I remember downloading NTFS-3g from the repository in 6.06[?] Dapper Drake for read only, but don't remember having to do so with 8.04.

Currently I am running 10.10, and the default install has read-write support enabled for NTFS, and has been the same since 9.04, for certain.

What you're probably running into is not having your Windows partitions mounted.
If they are not mounted, they won't even show up in your file manager. (Nautilus)

Without knowing more, here are some helpful links:
Pick your distro [ubuntu.com] . Ubuntu has good tech support doc's and forums.
"Mounting Windows partitions" [ubuntu.com] for 9.04 search results from the above link[I randomly selected 9.04]
Here is what you're looking, for most likely. [ubuntu.com] ; top answer from the above search results.

That info took about 1 minute to find, starting with a google.com search for 'Ubuntu', BTW.

Admittedly, there is a 'learning curve'/mindset change going from from Windows to *nix, but it's not different from just starting with Windows originally.
Remember when you first started using a computer?
Well, going from Windows to *nix is actually a lot easier if you really want to make the jump.....

*first-strike dibs on pedants*
I started with a Win95 PC in 1996, and migrated to Kubuntu 6.06 when I ran afoul of WinXP WGA with a legitimate copy of XP Pro in 2004.
I was heavily into gaming and upgraded hardware often, and either due to 'key-gens' on the net, or HW changes in my PC, I could not re-activate my retail copy of XP without buying a new copy from Microsoft. I had been dual-booting XP and Ubuntu since Ubuntu 5.04, so it was a 'no brainer' for me. YMMV

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184228)

MS actually has a very good history with in-house designed file systems. NTFS is pretty damn good, it even accommodates classic Mac resource forks (from the days NT had AppleTalk support). HPFS was very good as well...one of Microsoft's greatest contributions to OS/2 before the IBM split up. Heck, look at Apple's HFS+, its been around since 1997 and is really just an extension to the circa 1985 HFS file system.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184256)

What's wrong with NTFS?

Many, many things. The MFT (Master File Table) which contains all your file system info... may also contain actual files if they are small enough to fit into the remaining space (i.e. disk block sizes matter). Why is this a problem? file wiping software usually won't go near the MFT since you twiddle the wrong bits in the MFT and the entire file system is likely to go poof. Oh the MFT is also basically not documented properly, I actually had an MS employee that owed me a favor try to find the docs on it and he couldn't.

http://www.berghel.net/col-edit/digital_village/aug-06/dv_8-06.php [berghel.net]

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (2)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184298)

What's wrong with NTFS?

Many, many things. The MFT (Master File Table) which contains all your file system info... may also contain actual files if they are small enough to fit into the remaining space (i.e. disk block sizes matter). Why is this a problem? file wiping software usually won't go near the MFT since you twiddle the wrong bits in the MFT and the entire file system is likely to go poof.

The fact that NTFS doesn't happen to conform to a particular naive model of "how file systems work", namely "all file data is stored in blocks separate from file headers", might be an annoyance to developers of third-party file wiping software, but I wouldn't consider that to be something "wrong" with it. If Microsoft don't supply a file-wiping API that allows user-mode code to request that all the data in a file be wiped, regardless of how that data might happen to be stored for particular files on a particular version of a particular file system, one might consider that to be something "wrong" with Windows, but that's another matter.

Oh the MFT is also basically not documented properly, I actually had an MS employee that owed me a favor try to find the docs on it and he couldn't.

That's not a problem with NTFS, it's a problem with Microsoft's software development practices (although it's probably not the only piece of software for which the documentation of the data structures lags behind the current data structures).

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184602)

What about the lack of relative links? (Though there are rumors they exist somehow).

NTFS is one of MS's least controversial contributions to storage, but for a company that prides itself on enterprise level support, it's fairly inadequate to the notion of clustering or seamless activity.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184886)

What about the lack of relative links?

Relative symbolic links are fully supported in Win7. And I don't think there's even such a thing as a "relative hard link", in any OS or FS, since hard links don't use paths by definition.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184794)

That's like saying the problem is that you didn't wear a condom while you raped the kittens. No... the problem is that you are raping kittens.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184832)

Come on.. proper data structure design is stuff that they teach in first year at university in CS courses...

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184852)

Come on.. proper data structure design is stuff that they teach in first year at university in CS courses...

Presumably you mean "properly keeping the documentation of the data structures up to date", as there's nothing at all improper about stuffing the data of small files into the same data structure as the file metadata (nor, for that matter, anything unique to Microsoft or NTFS about it).

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184308)

Everyday portion of bashing Microsoft makes us feel much better.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (5, Interesting)

bertok (226922) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184342)

NTFS still doesn't have shared cluster filesystem capability. This has a bunch of flow-on effects, which basically means that Windows Server clusters are actually "Failover Clusters". The key part of that being the "Fail".

Really basic services like the file shares are impossible to make truly highly available using Windows, because neither NTFS nor SMB support transparent fail-over of open files. There isn't even a way of doing a clean administrative cluster fail-over, such as a drain-stop. The only option is forcibly closing all open files, potentially corrupting user data, and forcing users to click through dirty error messages that their PCs may or may not recover from.

I've tried things like Polyserve, which is a third-party filesystem that has proper cluster support, but it's still hamstrung by SMB. What's doubly ridiculous is that Microsoft basically re-engineered SMB for Vista, and called it "SMB2", but it still can't do clean fail-over!

Similarly, SQL Server can't do proper failover of cluster nodes, nor can it do proper active-active database clusters that share a single database file, because of the limitations of the underlying filesystem. It can no active-active clustering for read-only files, but that's only rarely useful.

Even within Microsoft, workarounds had to be found to make some of their key products somewhat resilient. Both SQL Server and Exchange now use software mirroring for cleaner failover. Ignoring the cost of having to purchase twice as much disk, mirroring has other issues too, like becoming bottle-necked by the network speed, or limiting the features that can be used. For example, if your application performs queries across two databases in a single query, then you can't use Mirroring, because there's no way to specify that the two databases should fail over in a group.

VMware has become a multi-billion dollar company in a few short years because a single non-clustered Windows Server on a VMware cluster is more robust than a cluster of Windows Servers!

  "Enterprise Edition" my ass.

Re:What's wrong with NTFS? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185278)

You are correct about many things you point out. I don't see mirroring as a problem if you need an HA environment. Frankly if you are using a shared storage cluster, be it active-active or failover you still have a single point of failure the storage. That is kinda of a deal breaker if you are looking for 5 nines.

VMWare clusters do a good job but are only really HA if you have the right kind of storage to back them up or are remotely replicating them (which is not going to give your clean failover either).

I keep seeing these SMBs buying two or three high end servers and tieing them to starter SAN solutions like MSAs, Lefthand servers etc. These do have lots of redundancy around the most common points of failure but only the disingenuous marketing robots would claim they are fully redundant.

Drive Letters (4, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184224)

IMHO, Microsoft worst offense in storage is drive letters, which provide no information about either the type and structure of the underlying disks or the data they contain, and have caused untold headaches from applications (and the OS itself) being reliant on paths that are arbitrarily assigned, subject to change, and often out of the user's control.

Admittedly, Microsoft didn't invent the system, but the fact that drive letters still exist in 2011 is entirely their fault.

Re:Drive Letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184396)

Short names and the tunnel-cache are the worst offenses (http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?article=22)
In NT, drive letters are just junction points used for app-compat. You can re-mount your drive anywhere you want.

Re:Drive Letters (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184444)

That would be very hard to change, as so many applications would need to be altered.

Re:Drive Letters (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184542)

That would be very hard to change, as so many applications would need to be altered.

And backwards compatibility/legacy support for third party software is certainly not always a given (speaking as a generally satisfied MS customer).

Re:Drive Letters (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184660)

That would be very hard to change, as so many applications would need to be altered.

...but surely it is not beyond the whit of man to emulate drive letters (ln -s /D: /home anybody?) for legacy apps while dragging the rest of the file system into the 1980s?

Instead, the more modern "logical" file system in Windows (as used by the desktop) still feels like an emulation sitting on top of drive letters, and last time I looked required you to use a proprietary GUI.

Still - it could be worse - with all the ex-DEC people involved in Windows NT, they could have gone for the VAX filing system. Actually, that seems to have been the basic philosophy behind WinFS: "Hey, who needs a disc filing system when you can have a DBMS instead" (ans: people who want to use a different DMBS?)

s/GUI/API in line 3 (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184672)

s/GUI/API in line 3

So many TLAs, so few brain cells...

Re:Drive Letters (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184694)

I'm no application developer, but don't most apps rely on environment variables like %programfiles% and %userprofile% for their paths rather than drive letters?
And reading and writing to files on the network seems to work fine without a drive letter, I can access a shared folder on this computer as \\ComputerName\FolderName from any app, though I prefer to map it to Z: since it's shorter.
So what exactly would be the problem?

I remember some games in the 90s that used "C:\Program Files\..." as their default install folder rather than use an environment variable but that's about it.

Re:Drive Letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35185140)

The fundamental problem is that the actual physical drives are represented in the file system in the first place. The Unix filesystem is always transparent and holistic. I can access any path without having to care the least bit about what drive is physically behind this path... ramfs, nfs, samba, lvm, raid, I just don't need to know. A file is a file is a file.

Using environment variables just defers the problem and adds another possible point of failure. It's just a kludge. Drive letters are a braindead remnant from when MS founded its monoply third party, self proclaimed "quick and dirty dos". The fact that SMB is slightly better in this regard is not relevant here.

The article, just like so many from the windows world, acts as if Microsoft had a great innovative idea but simply failed to deliver it, completely ignoring the fact that better solutions have been around for 40+ years. And then they get upset

Re:Drive Letters (1)

Nevynxxx (932175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185630)

I would love to introduce you to the internal developers at our place.

"What do you mean I can't write a temporary PDF to c:\ unless I'm administrator? Where *am* I supposed to put it!!!!"

Bloody backslashes... (4, Interesting)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184608)

How about getting the directory separator wrong? This has indirectly led to a generation of TV and radio presenters having to say "forward slash" when reading out URLs...

Re:Bloody backslashes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35185496)

I don't often hear non-techies say "forward slash," but I frequently hear them say "backslash" when they mean "forward slash." It makes me irrationally angry.

Re:Bloody backslashes... (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185624)

Is it wrong or simply different? AFAIK, the first DOS did not have directories, so they were free to choose / as the option prefix. Of course, they later added fancy things like directories and multiuser capabilities, but Windows users still suffer from having to be backwards compatible with a directoryless OS.

Re:Drive Letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35185288)

Admittedly, Microsoft didn't invent the system, but the fact that drive letters still exist in 2011 is entirely their fault.

And I bet that modern CPUs still have an A20 gate, too.

You're asking the wrong question, though. The question is not "does it suck", but rather "does it suck so much that we can justify the suckage it would cause if we fixed it". It'd be a pretty fundamental change; it'd cost time and money, and it'd interfere with legacy applications and all that. All that, just for a minor inconvenience?

Forgetting about Storage Server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184434)

Microsoft's attempts at turning Windows 2003 and 2008 into a SAN have been even larger disasters. I work in a field where support storage for different vendors, and when a customer attempts to use MS storage server, we flat out tell them it won't work. They simply refuse to follow SCSI/iSCSI standards and hosting something as critical as storage on bloated Windows never works.

Even their unix emulation NFS services fail miserably compared to even the beta versions of Linux distributions from 1996.

NTFS from Windows and Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184624)

I am currently developing for both Windows and Linux, so unlike the fanbois for both systems, I can comment on both. Both work. They offer much the same level of functionality.

As a developer, I prefer developing for Windows. Microsoft provides documentation for their system - good, consistent documentation that can be relied on. Trying to find documentation for anything other than the basic system functionality in Linux (manpages!) is damn difficult. It's a lot easier to write code that will run on pretty much every Windows system, because it's consistent and backwards compatible. It's a lot harder to write code that will run on every version of Linux (maybe command-line code - too many choices in GUIs). And don't give me that rubbish about "read the source code" - that doesn't tell me how the code is intended to be used. I do like the more standardised support for C++ and STL in Linux.

Oh, and yes, NTFS-3g does support read-write access to NTFS volumes. I've hit one glitch so far in its support for NTFS on Windows 7 (there's a loop-back in one symbolic link), but other than that, it provides fairly complete support, albeit without complete support for all of these Windows attributes (because they don't map to Linux attributes).

Re:NTFS from Windows and Linux (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184818)

Please explain to me exactly how the MFT works then.

Re:NTFS from Windows and Linux (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184904)

If you want good and extensive developer documentation (and other support), I highly recommend using Qt for your Unix development wherever possible. It's not just an UI toolkit, it's a full-fledged framework that covers a lot of ground - probably about as much as .NET 1.x.

LVM2 or raid? (2)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184728)

I have used LVM2 now for two years with my various notebooks and netbooks. They had various crashes and power downs but I never loosed one bit of data. My small home server is using LVM2 as well with my 3 USB hard disks, serves videos and music to my home.

With my notebooks and netbooks I can grow or shrink my root or home partition and with my server [linux-onlineshop.de] I can just plug in another USB hard disk and grow my partition. No fuss not complicated at all and works all the time.

All that for free, just download Fedora, Debian or Ubuntu and install it in 10 minutes. If you want, setup a FTP server, apache server or what ever you like. Or you get what you pay for with Windows for 100$ or more.

ZFS (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184888)

Or better yet, ZFS. The only free fs (until btrfs is ready for prime time) that prevents data corruption and bit rot, supports single/double/triple parity raid, caching, etc.

Re:LVM2 or raid? (1, Interesting)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35184908)

-What happens if you lose a disk?
So you look to install raid
-what if all your disks aren't the same size?
and
-what if you want to upgrade just one disk? Or add a new disk? (I know both are possible with the raid-5 tools, but adding new disks takes HOURS, if not DAYS, depending on the size of your array.... not something I'd call usable to a home user)

MS drive extender and Unraid both have a home-user solution that open source does not match right now. I hope this changes soon!

Re:LVM2 or raid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35185274)

btrfs?

Truthfully, I'm not sure, but I think these are things that zfs (on BSD varients) has already figured out, and that btrfs (not ready for prime time, yet) is figuring out currently.

Re:LVM2 or raid? (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185362)

MS drive extender and

Well, not anymore do they?

What happens if you lose a disk?

Why, what happens? We are talking about the MS drive extender and with LVM2 you can use such feature with every major Linux distribution since 13 years and that without the risk to loose any data.

If MS only just implemented LVM2 for Windows you would have now a nice space expansion feature which is proven to work.

Raid is not a backup solution [2brightsparks.com] anyway so if you care about your data you need to have a backup strategy.

"the debacle that was WinFS" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35184906)

Typical of Big Government, poorly specified projects with bloated funding. They should let Private Enterprise solve the problem.

WinFS != BeOS (0)

doperative (1958782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35185548)

WinFS was touted as the next big thing in Longhorn/Vista. They couldn't even do it when they stole the code .. link [beincorporated.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?