https://www.osnews.com/story/138501...rime-time-due-to-lack-of-wider-compatibility/ ReFS is like 5 years old right?
Last edited:
Bootable Windows on ReFS still not ready for prime time due to lack of wider compatibility
- Thread starter Edward78
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Dec 2019
- Posts
- 8,022
- Location
- Planet Thanet
Pretty sure it's lot older than 5 years
I have used Windows storage spaces much longer
Than 5 years
Though obviously not bootable
I have used Windows storage spaces much longer
Than 5 years
Though obviously not bootable
Full article here: https://www.neowin.net/news/bootabl...rime-time-due-to-lack-of-wider-compatibility/
It's 11 years old - it was available with Windows Server 2012
People have managed to boot from it but clearly it's got some issues and is disabled for good reason
Whilst the intentions are good, I just don't think Microsoft has either the calibre of engineers or the structure in place to build software in the same way as they did when NTFS and the like were designed.
With NTFS they "got it right" from day 1, and it's worked (almost) flawlessly for over 30 years, despite supporting storage devices and capacities that could only have been dreamed of back in 1993.
NTFS had 5 major versions over 8 years (with the first release in 1993 and the last in 2001) and for the most part they were forwards and backwards compatible without any real issues.
In contrast ReFS has had at least 15 versions since it's creation in 2012, and compatibility is not assured between versions
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
It's 11 years old - it was available with Windows Server 2012
People have managed to boot from it but clearly it's got some issues and is disabled for good reason
Whilst the intentions are good, I just don't think Microsoft has either the calibre of engineers or the structure in place to build software in the same way as they did when NTFS and the like were designed.
With NTFS they "got it right" from day 1, and it's worked (almost) flawlessly for over 30 years, despite supporting storage devices and capacities that could only have been dreamed of back in 1993.
NTFS had 5 major versions over 8 years (with the first release in 1993 and the last in 2001) and for the most part they were forwards and backwards compatible without any real issues.
In contrast ReFS has had at least 15 versions since it's creation in 2012, and compatibility is not assured between versions
NTFS - Wikipedia
ReFS - Wikipedia
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Dec 2019
- Posts
- 8,022
- Location
- Planet Thanet
Yeah 11 years sounds more like it
It's certainly proven resilient for my usage
Despite my best attempts over the years
I have only ever managed
To make a storage space totally corrupted once
It's certainly proven resilient for my usage
Despite my best attempts over the years
I have only ever managed
To make a storage space totally corrupted once
New unfortunately rarely equals reliable.
What are you personally missing from NTFS that you feel a new filesystem would solve?
Like Mcnumpty2323 said, very hard to corrupt, that sounds great for a OS FS.
And how often do you experience data corruption with NTFS?
I don't. I don't drive a car, but I am for safer cars.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 3,631
- Location
- Scotland
| Feature | ReFS | NTFS |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum file name length | 255 Unicode characters | 255 Unicode characters |
| Maximum path name length | 32K Unicode characters | 32K Unicode characters |
| Maximum file size | 35 PB (petabytes) | 256 TB |
| Maximum volume size | 35 PB | 256 TB |
| BitLocker encryption | Yes | Yes |
| Data Deduplication | Yes1 | Yes |
| Cluster Shared Volume (CSV) support | Yes2 3 | Yes |
| Junctions/Soft links | Yes | Yes |
| Hard links | Yes4 | Yes |
| Failover cluster support | Yes | Yes |
| Access-control lists | Yes | Yes |
| USN journal | Yes | Yes |
| Changes notifications | Yes | Yes |
| Junction points | Yes | Yes |
| Mount points | Yes | Yes |
| Reparse points | Yes | Yes |
| Volume snapshots | Yes | Yes |
| File IDs | Yes | Yes |
| Oplocks | Yes | Yes |
| Sparse files | Yes | Yes |
| Named streams | Yes | Yes |
| Thin Provisioning | Yes5 | Yes |
| Trim/Unmap | Yes5 | Yes |
| Page file support | Yes6 | Yes |
| Functionality | ReFS | NTFS |
|---|---|---|
| Block clone | Yes | No |
| Sparse VDL | Yes | No |
| Mirror-accelerated parity | Yes (on Storage Spaces Direct) | No |
| File-level snapshots | Yes1 | No |
| File system compression | No | Yes |
| File system encryption | No | Yes |
| Transactions | No | Yes |
| Object IDs | No | Yes |
| Offloaded Data Transfer (ODX) | No | Yes |
| Short names | No | Yes |
| Extended attributes | No | Yes |
| Disk quotas | No | Yes |
| Bootable | No | Yes |
| Supported on removable media | No | Yes |
Resilient File System (ReFS) overview
Learn more about: Resilient File System (ReFS) overview
learn.microsoft.com
ReFS already has all features NTFS had but it lacked all 10 functions like file system compression, file system encryption, transactions, object IDs, offloaded data transfer (ODX), short names, extended attributes, disk quotas, bootable and supported on removable media.
Hopefully soon in a few years when ReFS add these 10 missing functions then ReFS will be finally ready to replace NTFS.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 3,631
- Location
- Scotland
I did experienced data corruption with NTFS on Windows XP, Vista and 7 with MBR partition about 5 or 6 times backup data to large hard disks then format and reinstall Windows.
But I did not experienced data corruption with NTFS on Windows 8, 8.1, 10 and 11 with GPT partition for 14 years as chkdsk succeed repaired data corruption and recovered fully everytime while MBR had failed everytime.
I rhink it is bootable my dad found a article, I will try to find it. It seemed nuts that after all this time it still wasn't bootable.
www.youtube.com
Windows 11 soon to install on reFS drives out of the box test done on Canary builds
This will be interesting to see when it arrives on consumer version of Windows 11
www.youtube.com
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 3,631
- Location
- Scotland
It seemed Windows 11 24H2 now has ReFS support.
www.hostzealot.com
If you want bootable ReFS, you will need to perform full format drive, not quick format. Convert NTFS to ReFS is not possible.
ReFS block cloning file copy operations are up to 94% faster than NTFS.
Windows 11 24H2: How ReFS and Block Cloning Speed Up File Operations - Blog - HostZealot
With the Windows 11 24H2 update, the consumer version of the operating system now includes support for the ReFS (Resilient File System) and block cloning, features that were previously only available...
If you want bootable ReFS, you will need to perform full format drive, not quick format. Convert NTFS to ReFS is not possible.
ReFS block cloning file copy operations are up to 94% faster than NTFS.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Dec 2019
- Posts
- 8,022
- Location
- Planet Thanet
Refs still isn't bootable
Though 24h2 supports refs
Refs has been in windows preview versions for quite a while
At least last i tried couple months ago
I couldn't make refs drives bootable
Copying 1TB of mixed files was no faster
Than storage spaces
At least when using no form of redundancy/mirroring
That up to 94% will be in only some specific use cases
But a simple drive A and drive B scenario formatted in refs
Compared to same drives formatted in ntfs
I saw no speed increase
If you had something like drive A and B then mirrored to C
Then might be some improvement with the mirror speed
Biggest problem i had
Drives made using dev drive and formatted as refs (physical drives
Not refs as vhd which is also doable)
Were unreadable to Windows on a drive
That didn't create them
I have windows installed on multiple drives
Call them A,B,C for example
Made refs drives on A they just showed as raw on B,C
This isn't the case with drives/pools made with storage spaces
Though 24h2 supports refs
Refs has been in windows preview versions for quite a while
At least last i tried couple months ago
I couldn't make refs drives bootable
Copying 1TB of mixed files was no faster
Than storage spaces
At least when using no form of redundancy/mirroring
That up to 94% will be in only some specific use cases
But a simple drive A and drive B scenario formatted in refs
Compared to same drives formatted in ntfs
I saw no speed increase
If you had something like drive A and B then mirrored to C
Then might be some improvement with the mirror speed
Biggest problem i had
Drives made using dev drive and formatted as refs (physical drives
Not refs as vhd which is also doable)
Were unreadable to Windows on a drive
That didn't create them
I have windows installed on multiple drives
Call them A,B,C for example
Made refs drives on A they just showed as raw on B,C
This isn't the case with drives/pools made with storage spaces
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Dec 2019
- Posts
- 8,022
- Location
- Planet Thanet
Even your linked article saysIt seemed Windows 11 24H2 now has ReFS support.
Windows 11 24H2: How ReFS and Block Cloning Speed Up File Operations - Blog - HostZealot
With the Windows 11 24H2 update, the consumer version of the operating system now includes support for the ReFS (Resilient File System) and block cloning, features that were previously only available...
If you want bootable ReFS, you will need to perform full format drive, not quick format. Convert NTFS to ReFS is not possible.
ReFS block cloning file copy operations are up to 94% faster than NTFS.
"However, it’s important to note that ReFS cannot be used on boot drives"