259 replies to this topic

[LeMOGO]

File system, I think.

File system is a generic word for many components and functions.
I learned waaayyy back that this one is called a volume.
However, I'm not a programmer. There may be some terminologies in your world I'm unaware of.
In any case, I will practice my reading fu and re-read things to make sure I'm not missing anything, then do what wonko is wait-and-seeing about, and come up with what I can conjure as a unified view.
If in the process, I have a question, I will post it. That's to clarify posts with possible double meaning, and/or unclear ideas.
More to come ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, is the "karyonix" family from a certain village in "Gaul"?
(looks to me that they later migrated to Thailand)

[Wonko the Sane]

File system is a generic word for many components and functions.

Which is used to define the *whatever*

... that contains the root directory, the one in which the directories and file names are created?

http://www.wordiq.co...ion/File_system

Do not EVEN THINK of getting away with the "I'm not a programmer" and "your world" :

However, I'm not a programmer. There may be some terminologies in your world I'm unaware of.

I learned waaayyy back that this one is called a volume.

A good 3/4 (three/quarters) of this thread posts have been about trying to explain that you have it WRONG.

You are very welcome to have file-systems that contain volumes , and also files that contain disks or disks that contains PC's.....
.... but still ...






Wonko

[LeMOGO]

Well, we'll see!
I did not make this up and I am not the *only* one who said so. We're from different countries, and we don't know each other. What do you make of that huh?

Our side (the government of volumeland) has this message for you:



Just wait and see!



at a reboot.pro page near you ...

[LeMOGO]

Which is used to define the *whatever*

http://www.wordiq.co...ion/File_system

Do not EVEN THINK of getting away with the "I'm not a programmer" and "your world" :

I think I understand your side of the debate now: both of you are from "Gaul".



No wonder you "see" things the same way (the way the rest of the world doesn't - 3 against 2 > democracy > we win!)

[Wonko the Sane]

A general paradox, I am afraid :




We'll see.




Wonko

[sambul61]

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/File_system

A good 3/4 (three/quarters) of this thread posts have been about trying to explain that you have it WRONG.

You are very welcome to have file-systems that contain volumes , and also files that contain disks or disks that contains PC's.....

Nice link - thank you! Btw, it shows that you are slowly starting to look at things from prospective of commonality (which is the task of this Map). Meaning that you MIGHT have being wrong indeed in the above 3/4 (of a quoter).

Looking at various OS and disk formatting scheme commonalities, it becomes obvious that:
- Partitions and Extents were introduced to allow divide physical storage into chunks carrying data;
- Logical Volumes were introduces as a counter measure, allowing to combine various chunks into a single logical storage by means of a File System providing unified access to that data;
- The approach delivers means to more efficiently use available physical storage medium for a given user's data collection and tasks.

Its not about winning a forum "battle", but simply more accurately reflecting commonalities across great diversity, introduced by various OSs and partitioning schemes & tools, developed by multiple vendors.

[sambul61]

Irrelevant pearl: Vincent van Gogh - an artist absorbed by his muse...

[Wonko the Sane]

Irrelevant pearls: Vincent van Gogh - an artist absorbed by his muse...

Heck!
I thought that the irrelevant pearls were your previous post!

Btw, it shows that you are slowly starting to look at things from prospective of commonality (which is the task of this Map).

- The approach delivers means to more efficiently use available physical storage medium for a given user's data collection and tasks.

Actually the above two are IMHO.

This one is not (meaning that it is a pearl of wisdom but it is not "mostly unrelated (or very generic)" ) :

Its not about winning a forum "battle", but simply more accurately reflecting commonalities in great diversity, introduced by various OSs and partitioning schemes & tools, developed by multiple vendors.

I thought that LeMOGO was the one amplifying the actual field of relevance of "The map" beyond the "partitioning" and "boot process" scope too much.

You clarify the actual scope of "The Map", it will contain *everything*

I guess we need to start talking extensively of BSD slices.....
http://tldp.org/HOWT... FreeBSD-2.html

....and of course THEOS and it's Spanned type 39 partitions .


Wonko

[sambul61]

Everything relevant to boot in all its commonized incarnations. I assume, FreeBCD does not boot... Or, at least its boot process sadly isn't defined in MS docs.

My view on what the Map should reflect was given here and over there. Of course, some of it just might go well beyond what one re-known expert's mental map is ready to offer. Hence the proposal to open (source) the Map, so that different branches would be developed in parallel by respective narrow wisdom holders without waiting for each other, at times and sequence they see fit. It will need to be homogenized too as it grows, time permitting. Its team work by definition, though the term might be unfamiliar to some.

The Old Mill

[Wonko the Sane]

Naah, the good MS guys extirpated FreeBSD from their servers a looong time ago:
http://www.betanews....eeBSD/992921150

And of course soon after they removed all traces , courtesy of the Wayback Machine:
http://web.archive.o...ail/default.asp


Wonko

[LeMOGO]

I thought that LeMOGO was the one amplifying the actual field of relevance of "The map" beyond the "partitioning" and "boot process" scope too much.

Huh?



Whada do?

I thought that to boot, you have to partition and apply a file system?
We defined the partitions and various locations on disk, but you have to do *something* with those! (like place them in a volume)
But some one says that they don't go "in" volumes, and that "volume" something totally different!
What do you expect me to do? Just ignore it?
It has to be settled somehow (or some kind of how as I like to say). So far, 3/2, democracy rules. 3 people say they go in volumes, 2 say they don't. You need to come up with at least one more person to make the fight even. Right now I'm not dreaming, and I'm not alone. So, it's not "me".

We're still in the scope of "how to prepare to boot". Don't we have to decide what to do with the partitions? When you change OS, and the pieces change names, don't we have to know the name of the pieces? What about when we read documentation? How about when we write them?
Hmmm!
I think we're on target.
We're just don't have a consensus on what a "volume" is, and I have to punch it in somehow (or some kind of how as I like to say), but if I can't place it and define it, I have a problem!
Don't you think so?

[LeMOGO]

Just so nobody claims to misunderstand my position:

"the fact that one particular OS misrepresents/mis-names/mis-understands how things are supposed to work is not a valid enough reason to invalidate and cripple the whole computer world".

There are other OSes out there, and they group partitions in "volumes".
We just need to find a way to define things in smooth and coherent way.
We definitely can not just "jump over it".

Yours truly,

LeMOGO.

[LeMOGO]

Just a clarification, for the records also.

The website that holds the "map" offers a service. I am not affiliated with them. I just went with that choice because of the ability to work online so others can follow along and participate.
I personally have several versions of mind mapping software on ALL my computers. I've been using them for years and really do not need any online version. I can just take my notes on my computer like I've been doing for yearS.

The hosts of this map define how it works. I do not make the features of the software. The one we are currently using for "the amp" is adequate for the job. It has a collaborative feature, but just like you can't post on reboot.pro without an account, you can't edit *any* map without an account on their server (obvious security reasons - and the monetary ones too). To work as a group, each of us needs an account, and each name need to be added to "the map" as an authorized editor (like with any other shared network document). You can get in and work on it as you please once you provide me the credentials needed to add you to it. If you would like to positively contribute, and you know a way of getting on it without account, please be my guest.
The only thing I will ask everybody is to be careful while working on the map.
While moving the mouse around on the actual document, one can easily move branches and create confusion (you may want to start with a couple of personal maps to practice). This is especially true if you are working on a laptop with a touch pad that is preconfigured for gestures.
Please make sure you do not accidentally delete things.
Aside from that, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from contributing either here and on the map (I will add whatever you want me to add, as long as i have time and it's related tot he subject).

Have fun!

[Wonko the Sane]

I see no problem whatever in the concept of "volume".

Let's see if this helps :

• In basic disks a "volume" is an "extent" on one disk; this can be called "drive" also.
• In dynamic disks a "volume" is one or more "extent(s)" on one or more disk(s); this can be called "drive" also.
• An "extent" is a number of sectors addressed in a partition table, in basic disks, in case of a primary partition the extent can be called "partition" also, in the case of extended partitions, the extent(s) inside it (and it's sub-partition(s)) can be called "logical drive(s)" or "logical volume(s)" as well.

There is some confusion as the terms are used differently in different contexts, and on different OS documentation, but also that can be (I think rather easily) "fixed" by using some new terminology or better defining the available ones or clearing exactly their meaning in each given context.

Just as an example the given BSD link:
http://tldp.org/HOWT... FreeBSD-2.html
calls the primary partition a "slice" and extents inside it "partitions", and refers to the *something" that in Dos/Linux/Windows would be called "logical volumes inside Extended" or logical drives inside Extended" as "logical partitions", calling them "partitions" but it it seems to me nonetheless clear.

2.1 FreeBSD ``slices'' and ``partitions''

FreeBSD needs one of the four entries in the partition table on your PC's hard drive. This primary partition is called a ``slice'' in FreeBSD terminology. It then uses the disklabel program to make up to eight partitions in this primary partition. These logical partitions are called ``partitions'' in FreeBSD terminology. This concept is similar to the way Linux (and DOS) handles logical partitions in an extended partition. You cannot install FreeBSD in an extended partition made by Linux (or DOS). Note that the Linux fdisk program doesn't display the BSD partitions in a FreeBSD slice from the main menu, but it can display BSD disklabel information if you give the command `b'. The output is something like this (/dev/hda4 is the FreeBSD slice):

The only problem I see is (unless something has changed and I haven't noticed) what is inside what, namely:

• does a volume contain one (and only one) file-system, applied to it by the operation called "format"
  or
• does a file-system contain one or more volumes

Last time I was seriously on the matter (which is around post #150) the only point I found debatable was the concept of what contains what.

IMHO (and you will soon see how my personal such opinion will be criticized ) multiple (possibly at the same time) edits on the online version by different peeps is pure folly .


Wonko

[LeMOGO]

Hmmm!
OK!
We're making progress.
BUT!
(every time somebody says "but", it stands for "behold the underlying truth", in simple english, forget what they said before, what they are really trying to say (the truth) comes after the "but" )

BUT!

The only problem I see is (unless something has changed and I haven't noticed) what is inside what, namely:

• does a volume contain one (and only one) file-system, applied to it by the operation called "format"
  or
• does a file-system contain one or more volumes

On "regular OSes" (notice I did not say "popular"), extents are bundled into volumes, then the "format" is applied to the volume, making all the blocks of the participating extents available through the file system (directory). Just because it is "popular" to have it "hidden" or backwards does not change the "order" of things!
If the extents are *also* called a "volume", that simply puts one type of volume inside another!

[list]
[*]In basic disks a "volume" is an "extent" on one disk...

... and all that because people from a certain company act like illiterates, or is it a conspiracy?
Maybe we should ask maanu, huh?

[Wonko the Sane]

Me thinks that you will have to dirty a bit your hands with a hex/disk editor.

Check this (AND links within it) :
http://strangelyperf...k-in-windows-7/


As said, the answer is 42:
http://reboot.pro/13676/page__st__130

Of course when talking of "simple volumes":
http://technet.micro...y/cc938492.aspx

Something confusing (or clearing? ) :
http://www.powerdata...y-of-terms.html
http://www.partition...basic-disk.html


Wonko

[sambul61]

does a file-system contain one or more volumes?

...edits on the online Map version by different peeps is pure folly .

Can you give an example where in your superior view a Windows File System contains several Logical Volumes?

Are you familiar with Open Source Project concept? Do you agree with MS, its a cancer deadly faulty for IT? Regardless, do you know how such OSP work is usually organized in a team of remote members? How do YOU envision its ideally organized?

A good night read: How to loosely organize a community?

This part is close and personal to me: "One week as a dish washer -- nothing like seeing up close what people don't eat".

Speaking of MS, imaging this: their 40K organization is structured into Product Divisions (like Entertainment) with Business Units targeting certain customer groups. Each Unit is structured into teams responsible for certain Projects (like Windows Media Center). How co-operative work is typically organized inside Teams, btw Teams, and btw Divisions - its a complex undertaking from management and organizational standpoint, including supporting infrastructure. But the point is, no complex task is accomplished today without some kind of co-operation. And the way, its organized today is explicitly concurrent, not sequential, and not channeled through a single dispatch or control point (except to push for deliverables and share rewards btw toadies ).

Vincent van Gogh. Potato Eaters. (Concurrent Team Work).

[Wonko the Sane]

Can you give an example where in your superior view a Windows File System contains several Logical Volumes?

Though evidently NOT clear, what I am saying is that in my view a filesystem is applied to a volume, or that a volume contains a filesystem.
LeMogo is saying the opposite:

But the thing is:

• a file system contains a volume
• a volume contains a root directory
• a root directory contains directories, files and sub-directories

Now, what I have to understand if the filesystem in his (wrong ) view contains only one (or more) volume(s).
But seemingly I cannot have a straight answer.

Are you familiar with Open Source Project concept? Do you agree with MS, its a cancer deadly faulty for IT?

Sure.

Do you agree with MS, its a cancer deadly faulty for IT?

No. (meaning that I do not think that Open Source is "a cancer deadly faulty for IT", whether Microsoft thinks that I don't know, IF it does, then I don't agree with them)

Regardless, do you know how such OSP work is usually organized? How do you envision its ideally organized?

Very basically? See here:
http://reboot.pro/6956/page__st__74

Speaking of MS, imaging this: their 40K organization is structured into Business Units (like Entertainment) targeting certain customer groups. Each Unit is structured into teams responsible for certain Projects (like Windows Media Center). How co-operative work is typically organized inside Teams, btw Teams, and btw Divisions - its a complex undertaking from management and organizational standpoint, including supporting infrastructure. But the point is, no complex task is accomplished today without some kind of co-operation. And the way, its organized today is explicitly concurrent, not sequential, and not going through a single dispatch or control source.

Yep .
You might appreciate my completely fictional example given here:
http://reboot.pro/2362/page__st__7
http://reboot.pro/2362/page__st__9


Wonko

[sambul61]

A File System is applied to a Logical Volume when its formatted.

Your above links don't reveal your view (if any) on how exactly several individuals can concurrently contribute into a project? I mean from organizational and infrastructure standpoint?

[Wonko the Sane]

A File System is applied to a Logical Volume when its formatted.

And what happens to "a volume" not necessarilty "Logical"?

Remember, Basic disks only:

....
Due to the time order in which these "items" are created during the common operations of partitioning a basic disk and formatting (where formatting is assumed to mean "apply a filesystem on a given, delimited interval of sectors mapped in a partition table), and using a <= kind of operator (meaning that one item that has the SAME start and end may be considered "inside" another item that has a "higher place" in the timeline).
....

We can say with a righteous degree of approximation that:

• a disk contains partitions (up to 4 primary or up to 3 primary+1 Extended, which can contain 1 "logical volume" and up to 127 "sub-partitions", each containing a "logical volume")
• a primary partition contains a "volume" OR "extent" OR "drive"
• an extended partition normally contains a "logical volume" or "volume" or "extent" or "drive" (first one)
• an extended partition MAY contain one or more sub-partitions
• a sub-partition contains a "logical volume" or "volume" or "extent" or "drive"
• a filesystem is generally applied to any of "logical volume" or "volume" or "extent" or "drive", we can say that a "logical volume" or "volume" or "extent" or "drive" contains a filesystem
• a filesystem contains directories, files and sub-directories
• the terms "logical volume", "volume", "extent", "drive" ALWAYS identify a same physical range of sectors of the disk as defined in a partition table, and thus can be (and are) often used as synonyms. In the case of Primary partitions, also the term partition can be used as a synonym of "volume", "extent", "drive".
• since a "partition" or "logical volume" or "volume", "extent", "drive" is pretty much useless without a filesystem applied to it, often the term "filesystem" is used - somewhat IMproperly - as a synonym to "partition" (primary only) or "logical volume" or "volume", "extent", "drive".
• Dynamic disks are NOT Basic disks and they are DIFFERENT

Your above links don't reveal your view (if any) on how exactly several individuals can concurrently contribute into a project? I mean from organizational and infrastructure standpoint?

Maybe you need to re-read it again and again to get an impression of my ideas on the matter, which are however completely irrelevant.


Wonko

[sambul61]

I mean Logical Volume as per this set of definitions. A particular format and mount operations order is irrelevant, since its OS and Tool dependent, and there is great variety of such tools, developed by different vendors (some adapted later by MS, hence considered part of OS now) and doing things differently.

I don't see in your linked posts, if you have any views on how work should be assigned btw project participants, by whom, and what physical infrastructure (platform, software) they should use to contribute to a common project concurrently.

[LeMOGO]

Though evidently NOT clear, what I am saying is that in my view a filesystem is applied to a volume, or that a volume contains a filesystem.
LeMogo is saying the opposite

Not really!
If you read the documents we went over @ MS, you will find that the "file system" is made of different components. One of those components if the "volume manager" (look in the "volume stack"), the one who "creates" the volumes that we are referring to. That's part of the file system. So are the File Allocation Tables and anything of that kind (like DBs). All that is "part" of the file system, including the volumes (not the partition ones). That's why I placed it in that order.
Simply speaking, the file system is anything in the OS between the application and the extents. Without FS, you can't have volumes, without volumes, you can't have root, without root you can't have directories, sub-directories and files. Once you have all that, you can store on an extent. It's all part of the file system, but there is precedence.
That's how I was looking at it.
I'm looking at the logical structure you bundle into "file system" that you throw at partitions. BUT, once applied, it's mostly logical at run-time, with only read/write being physical.
What I'm concerned with is the logical structure that enables filing. In that structure, the top level container is the volume. That's the first thing.

[LeMOGO]

edits on the online version by different peeps is pure folly .

I completely agree. no same admin does anything like that, and I am one who is security paranoid.
To satisfy all requirements, I am placing a carbon copy of the map for public editing and tranferring the completed edits to the "final" version of the map that only I (or someone else that want to help me and that I can trust), the "master impeacher", will have access to (my folly is not high enough to do it any other way - I can't take the risk of coming in the morning and find that someone inadvertently deleted a whole branch and I have no recourse).
I still have a little bitty bit of sense left, even after volumes!

The rest can work as I stated earlier, and as sambul61 suggested in previous posts.

[sambul61]

Of course regular backups and access security are integral part of concurrent work. The process is usually automated, and often includes File Check In & Out steps, user permission levels, and automated File Revision archiving, but in this situation we don't have suitable infrastructure in place (at the moment).

Regarding referral to I/O Workflow, IMHO it does not mean to say that File System includes listed OS Managers and Drivers, but merely shows that OS uses a File System data structure info & pointers, when writing or reading data from a mounted disk. These Managers and Drivers are independent OS entities. A File System is applied to a Volume when its formatted.

[LeMOGO]

Where is karyonix?