File Systems: Difference between revisions

[unchecked revision]

Content deleted Content added

Inline

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 There are only five filesystems that are both relatively easy to implement and worth to consider. There is no general recommendation as the choice depends largely on style and OS design. Instead you can read the comparison and make your own educated decision.
-'''[[USTAR]]'''
+'''RAMFS/TMPFS'''
-* <code>+</code> Of these beginner filesystems, this is the simplest by far to implement
+* <code>+</code> High flexibility of implementation
-* <code>+</code> Uses 512 byte sectors just like floppies and disks
+* <code>+</code> Fast
-* <code>+</code> Incredibly simple, a sector with meta data followed by data sectors
+* <code>+</code> Will allow you to test out your VFS API without having to rely on filesystem specifics
-* <code>+</code> Widely used, utility to create tar images are available for every mainstream OS
+* <code>+</code> *Highly* recommended as a starter filesystem to avoid morphing your VFS interface over a specific filesystem
-* <code>+</code> Supports special files (like devices and symlinks)
+* <code>+</code> Ideal to unpack a [[USTAR]] or [[CPIO]] [[initrd]] image into
+* <code>-</code> Changes are, obvious, not persistent, and only in memory, to be wiped after a reboot
-* <code>+</code> Supports Unix permissions
-* <code>-</code> No support for fragmentation
-* <code>-</code> No standard partition type for it, you'll have to pick one on your own
 '''[[FAT]]'''

Navigation menu