Skip to content

GitLab

  • Projects
  • Groups
  • Snippets
  • Help
    • Loading...
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in
tfs
tfs
  • Project overview
    • Project overview
    • Details
    • Activity
    • Releases
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 38
    • Issues 38
    • List
    • Boards
    • Labels
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge Requests 3
    • Merge Requests 3
  • CI / CD
    • CI / CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Operations
    • Operations
    • Incidents
    • Environments
  • Packages & Registries
    • Packages & Registries
    • Container Registry
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • CI / CD
    • Repository
    • Value Stream
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Members
    • Members
  • Collapse sidebar
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
  • redox-os
  • tfstfs
  • Issues
  • #90

Closed
Open
Opened Nov 06, 2020 by dumblob@dumblob

Question: How does this compare to other ultra fast & modern file systems like SPAD

I wonder whether there is any detailed feature comparison with less known modern file systems like SPAD except for mainstream filesystems (ZFS, Btrfs, Hammer, XFS, NTFS, Stratis, ...)?

The mentioned SPAD filesystem is measurably highly efficient (in terms of storage space as well as CPU processing as well as RAM/memory usage) as well as highly performant (scales from old HDDs through SSDs and Optane storage up to RAM-backed disks) and very safe (fully resistant against power loss; checksummed; etc.). I believe there are others.

Assignee
Assign to
None
Milestone
None
Assign milestone
Time tracking
None
Due date
None
Reference: redox-os/tfs#90