Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: LanyardFS: A New Linux File-System

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,533

    Default LanyardFS: A New Linux File-System

    Phoronix: LanyardFS: A New Linux File-System

    A new Linux kernel file-system has been presented, LanyFS, a.k.a. the Lanyard File-System...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE2MzU

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,021

    Default Pointless

    I think it is a pointless vanity file system with no real use.

    Perhaps could be used in education to teach users how-to-write-your-first-filesystem.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    I think it is a pointless vanity file system with no real use.

    Perhaps could be used in education to teach users how-to-write-your-first-filesystem.
    While I agree and feel there really doesn't need to be another filesystem, we don't know what this FS offers that makes it ideal for its purposes. It could actually be really nice, but of course as with all open source filesystems, the problem is adoption. ext2/3 has been around for a long time and there's still not very good support for those in either Windows or Mac.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,021

    Default

    I think the developer is relatively smart, because he is smart enough to write a file system.
    I also think he wants to see it upstreams because it would feel nice for him and be good for him.

    But I think he wanted to experiment with file systems and write something easy and then find a purpose for it.

    I don't think he is smart enough to write a scalable journaled file system with metadata, checksumming, transparent compression, cryptography, snapshotting, deduplication, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    While I agree and feel there really doesn't need to be another filesystem, we don't know what this FS offers that makes it ideal for its purposes. It could actually be really nice, but of course as with all open source filesystems, the problem is adoption. ext2/3 has been around for a long time and there's still not very good support for those in either Windows or Mac.
    The supposedly makes it ideal is that it is easy to implement.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    269

    Default

    include simplicity, interoperability, and flexibility.
    Simplicity? why would anyone care?
    Interoperability? windows /linux? if not, than ext3/4 eos all i need.
    flexibility? What?

    Dead at birth. no one needs it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,033

    Default

    The lkml comments are pretty much in agreement. There is no use case for this really.

    He said it's for usb sticks when fat32 limitations are too constraining. And that it could be used instead of fat32 due to not depending on patents.

    For the first we technically have UDF, the second is not certain at all.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    The lkml comments are pretty much in agreement. There is no use case for this really.

    He said it's for usb sticks when fat32 limitations are too constraining. And that it could be used instead of fat32 due to not depending on patents.

    For the first we technically have UDF, the second is not certain at all.
    Better the devil you know, right? An extra $0.25 really never make a device unsuccessful.

    Anyways it seems the goal is to make a file-system so simple as to be trivially portable to any OS, perhaps even microcontrollers. I say throw it in staging and see if anyone actually starts using it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    94

    Default Useless

    99% of portable devices need to operate with at least one Windows PC or a Macintosh. Until there's an IFS driver for windows and a proper Mac driver, any filesystem released for portable devices is a useless waste of devloper time. All 3 people that are exclusively Linux users are going to use this and everyone else is going to ignore it. If developers want to start pushing their technologies they have to aim for interop. Anything less just isn't acceptable anymore. Especially for low level stuff like Filesystems. We have OpenGL, OpenAL, SDL, and Fat32. Until you're ready to add your filesystem to that reasonably prestigious lineup. You won't get adoption. Linux already has ~50 filesystems most of which are useless outside of their niches due to lack of interop.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,033

    Default

    No, not even the linux-exclusive people would use it, when they already have better FS available. For example ext4 without journal is very good for usb sticks.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,021

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    No, not even the linux-exclusive people would use it, when they already have better FS available. For example ext4 without journal is very good for usb sticks.
    Why not use ext4 with journal?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •