In-place Windows 11 upgrades on ReFS may no longer fail as Microsoft quietly wor...
source link: https://www.neowin.net/news/in-place-windows-11-upgrades-on-refs-may-no-longer-fail-as-microsoft-quietly-works-on-it/
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
35 Comments - Add comment
NTFS is mature, though I wish whatever new file system would support on-the fly in memory file compression without recompressing it on the drive, which is crappy on SSD's as you create extra writes, rendering compression on file system level rather useless.
Or at least make file system compression smarter, so it only tries to compress compressible stuff like binaries (DLL and EXE) and not 20GB MP4 videos...
Very Microsoftian - develop a sophisticated product to replace the ole 30+ year old stuff...and then let it die a slow death in perpetual beta.
Very Microsoftian - develop a sophisticated product to replace the ole 30+ year old stuff...and then let it die a slow death in perpetual beta.
Do you have any idea how long it takes for a file system to mature?
I don't get the point of this file system. Who's using it? Who's it for? Because I don't believe that with this level of immaturity anybody is going to put their data on the line by storing it in a ReFS volume, even on Windows Server. Also, Microsoft seems to work on it very slowly, like if they don't care.
I don't get the point of this file system. Who's using it? Who's it for? Because I don't believe that with this level of immaturity anybody is going to put their data on the line by storing it in a ReFS volume, even on Windows Server. Also, Microsoft seems to work on it very slowly, like if they don't care.
I'd use it for everything if I could without going to the Pro for Workstations builds
I'd use it for everything if I could without going to the Pro for Workstations builds
You say that because you don't seem to have any important or critical data to store. No sane person would store that kind of data in such an experimental file system, risking to lose it all at any moment because of undiscovered or unfixed bugs.
Would you store your family photos and videos, for example, only in volumes formatted with ReFS?
You say that because you don't seem to have any important or critical data to store. No sane person would store that kind of data in such an experimental file system, risking to lose it all at any moment because of undiscovered or unfixed bugs.
Would you store your family photos and videos, for example, only in volumes formatted with ReFS?
I’ve stored my source code on it for years; hundreds of gigabytes. The only reason I went back to NTFS is due to Linux not being able to read it.
I’ve stored my source code on it for years; hundreds of gigabytes. The only reason I went back to NTFS is due to Linux not being able to read it.
Sure, but only on ReFS volumes? No other backups formatted with other file systems at the time?
You say that because you don't seem to have any important or critical data to store. No sane person would store that kind of data in such an experimental file system, risking to lose it all at any moment because of undiscovered or unfixed bugs.
Would you store your family photos and videos, for example, only in volumes formatted with ReFS?
No, because I have several NAS systems I could use for that.
But also yes, if all my systems supported ReFS.
Sure, but only on ReFS volumes? No other backups formatted with other file systems at the time?
Sure, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that there was never an issue. It’s not an experimental filesystem, it’s a purpose driven one and until recently, the purpose wasn’t consumers.
No, because I have several NAS systems I could use for that.
But also yes, if all my systems supported ReFS.
You proved my point. It's easy to display such confidence in ReFS when you have your important data on other file systems.
Sure, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that there was never an issue. It’s not an experimental filesystem, it’s a purpose driven one and until recently, the purpose wasn’t consumers.
Sure, but where is it being used? By whom? Because AFAIK, enterprises use mostly Linux servers and ZFS for storage. Where is this file system thriving right now?
You proved my point. It's easy to display such confidence in ReFS when you have your important data on other file systems.
I haven't proved anything either way because I currently have zero systems supporting ReFS. And nobody sane keeps critical data on one drive, no matter what the file system is.
Sure, but where is it being used? By whom? Because AFAIK, enterprises use mostly Linux servers and ZFS for storage. Where is this file system thriving right now?
Does it have to be thriving to be a thing? It’s an option for enterprise to use. Whether they do or use Linux instead is a whole different conversation. You could pose your same question for Windows Server in general. ReFS is a very specific and niche file system for MS-centric use cases, aka it needs an MS OS. In the server world we know what is most popular and it’s not MS. If you look at the targeted use cases for ReFS, you can see it’s not targeted for general use like NTFS.
I haven't proved anything either way because I currently have zero systems supporting ReFS. And nobody sane keeps critical data on one drive, no matter what the file system is.
I wasn't referring to you keeping your data on a single drive, but to you keeping your data on multiple different places, all of them using only ReFS as their file system. Of course no one intelligent would ever store critical things just in one drive.
I haven't proved anything either way because I currently have zero systems supporting ReFS
And yet you seem so eager to use it for everything (your words). What a level of confidence to show for a thing you haven't even used once...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing you for showing interest in ReFS, I'm also interested in it, my point is that one should be a little more "reserved" when it comes to using something so new and immature, especially the thing that literally helps your storage to locate and use your data, that's all.
I wasn't referring to you keeping your data on a single drive, but to you keeping your data on multiple different places, all of them using only ReFS as their file system. Of course no one intelligent would ever store critical things just in one drive.
And yet you seem so eager to use it for everything (your words). What a level of confidence to show for a thing you haven't even used once...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing you for showing interest in ReFS, I'm also interested in it, my point is that one should be a little more "reserved" when it comes to using something so new and immature, especially the thing that literally helps your storage to locate and use your data, that's all.
You cal it new and immature but it’s over a decade old and the last major feature added was 6 years ago. I think it comes down to it being a very limited file system, not an immature or new one. MS’s renewed interest in expanding its capability shouldn’t be mistaken for new and immature.
I wasn't referring to you keeping your data on a single drive, but to you keeping your data on multiple different places, all of them using only ReFS as their file system. Of course no one intelligent would ever store critical things just in one drive.
And yet you seem so eager to use it for everything (your words). What a level of confidence to show for a thing you haven't even used once...
I never said I haven't used it.
You cal it new and immature but it’s over a decade old and the last major feature added was 6 years ago. I think it comes down to it being a very limited file system, not an immature or new one. MS’s renewed interest in expanding its capability shouldn’t be mistaken for new and immature.
No, the last major feature was launched with the retail release of Windows Server 2022 in 2021 (file-level snapshots) and that was almost two years by now. But I agree, maybe the word "new" isn't the best, but "limited". Never mind, I hope it receives more love with Windows 12.
I wasn't referring to you keeping your data on a single drive, but to you keeping your data on multiple different places, all of them using only ReFS as their file system. Of course no one intelligent would ever store critical things just in one drive.
And yet you seem so eager to use it for everything (your words). What a level of confidence to show for a thing you haven't even used once...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing you for showing interest in ReFS, I'm also interested in it, my point is that one should be a little more "reserved" when it comes to using something so new and immature, especially the thing that literally helps your storage to locate and use your data, that's all.
Ironically enough, using it on something like a NAS is one of the places ReFS is designed for.
No, the last major feature was launched with the retail release of Windows Server 2022 in 2021 (file-level snapshots) and that was almost two years by now. But I agree, maybe the word "new" isn't the best, but "limited". Never mind, I hope it receives more love with Windows 12.
What feature are you referring to?
Edit: saw the parentheses. I stand corrected.
Ironically enough, using it on something like a NAS is one of the places ReFS is designed for.
True, but I don't think it will thrive there. ZFS has already won that space and ReFS doesn't have anything to displace it, IMO.
True, but I don't think it will thrive there. ZFS has already won that space and ReFS doesn't have anything to displace it, IMO.
Mine still use ext4 I believe. I wouldn't mind btrfs there personally.
Mine still use ext4 I believe. I wouldn't mind btrfs there personally.
What NAS do you have?
What NAS do you have?
EX2 Ultra, DS119j, and an Ibi. I'd like to get a Flashstor 6 at some point but I don't have the cash right now or actually need any of these.
EX2 Ultra, DS119j, and an Ibi. I'd like to get a Flashstor 6 at some point but I don't have the cash right now or actually need any of these.
Have you thought about building your own using standard x86 hardware and TrueNAS? I hear sometimes it's more cost-effective than a prebuilt one, plus it has infinite upgradeability and serviceability.
Have you thought about building your own using standard x86 hardware and TrueNAS? I hear sometimes it's more cost-effective than a prebuilt one, plus it has infinite upgradeability and serviceability.
Probably could with stuff I've already got lying around. Though right now I'm just turning the one I'm using off for a while because I really don't need one anyway.
ReFS is already there since Windows 8; unbelievable! I think these past few years, that Resilient File System is already stable. Microsoft is terribly slow to develop this kind of thing.
ReFS is already there since Windows 8; unbelievable! I think these past few years, that Resilient File System is already stable. Microsoft is terribly slow to develop this kind of thing.
File systems are slow to develop period.
File systems are slow to develop period.
Not to this degree, Microsoft could do a bit better if they would want to, IMO. NTFS took 8 years to fully mature, from 1993 to 2001. ReFS has already spent 11 years in the oven and it's still somewhat experimental without a clear path ahead. It seems that Microsoft isn't really interested or confident that ReFS could compete with ZFS or Btrfs. At this rate it would be production-ready by 2050.
Not to this degree, Microsoft could do a bit better if they would want to, IMO. NTFS took 8 years to fully mature, from 1993 to 2001. ReFS has already spent 11 years in the oven and it's still somewhat experimental without a clear path ahead. It seems that Microsoft isn't really interested or confident that ReFS could compete with ZFS or Btrfs. At this rate it would be production-ready by 2050.
I don’t know about fully mature— that is public release. How long was it not publicly released and worked on? I don’t know myself. ReFS is a specialized filesystem and it’s been in Windows for a long time. That they are adding boot support and features doesn’t feel to me that it’s unfinished but rather they decided to extend its feature set and expand the use cases for it. It originally was in server OSes only because that was what it was designed for. I do believe the last major feature was in 2017 until now. That fits closer to your original timeline with NTFS and then MS never improved upon it.
ReFS was never intended as an NTFS replacement, though that may have changed since inception.
I don’t know about fully mature— that is public release. How long was it not publicly released and worked on? I don’t know myself. ReFS is a specialized filesystem and it’s been in Windows for a long time. That they are adding boot support and features doesn’t feel to me that it’s unfinished but rather they decided to extend its feature set and expand the use cases for it. It originally was in server OSes only because that was what it was designed for. I do believe the last major feature was in 2017 until now. That fits closer to your original timeline with NTFS and then MS never improved upon it.
ReFS was never intended as an NTFS replacement, though that may have changed since inception.
Maybe not a replacement per se but it might become the new default just like how NTFS took over from FAT32 in the end. Unless they want to tweak NTFS as well, but I don't think so? With how we keep going to bigger and bigger storage needs and bigger and bigger overall file sizes, it could be the perfect time to have ReFS step in.
Maybe not a replacement per se but it might become the new default just like how NTFS took over from FAT32 in the end. Unless they want to tweak NTFS as well, but I don't think so? With how we keep going to bigger and bigger storage needs and bigger and bigger overall file sizes, it could be the perfect time to have ReFS step in.
Yep, I pretty much said as much in my last sentence. 🙂
Maybe not a replacement per se but it might become the new default just like how NTFS took over from FAT32 in the end. Unless they want to tweak NTFS as well, but I don't think so? With how we keep going to bigger and bigger storage needs and bigger and bigger overall file sizes, it could be the perfect time to have ReFS step in.
I don't think so? NTFS can handle volume sizes up to 8PB and file sizes up to 8PB as well, so there's no real need to replace it just for those reasons, we're not reaching 8PB anytime soon. What ReFS really lacks is trust. Right now nobody trusts ReFS because practically nobody uses it and Microsoft hasn't showed much love for it either.
Microsoft needs to improve its image by dumping more time and resources on it, to transition it to "boot drive file system" status, at least. I hope they do that with Windows 12.
I don't think so? NTFS can handle volume sizes up to 8PB and file sizes up to 8PB as well, so there's no real need to replace it just for those reasons, we're not reaching 8PB anytime soon. What ReFS really lacks is trust. Right now nobody trusts ReFS because practically nobody uses it and Microsoft hasn't showed much love for it either.
Microsoft needs to improve its image by dumping more time and resources on it, to transition it to "boot drive file system" status, at least. I hope they do that with Windows 12.
Trust? Lol… It’s trusted for the use cases it was designed for; Exchange, SharePoint, few others…
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK