Talk:Versioning file system

So why is there no modern versioning file system, or is there? It always seemed like a nice feature to me when using VMS back in the stone age. Spalding 12:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vista does support it, and Norton GoBack also as an addon to Window$. This is indeed a great feature and I don't know why isn't it more widespread doc Aberdeen ❖ 01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vista isn't mentioned in the article, however. Would someone mind adding it? – 80.212.184.71 (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about "mod_dav_svn"? It is sort of an adapter between the versioning system Subversion and WebDAV. WebDAV in turn is a network protocol for filesystem access, and I guess it can even be mounted as ordinary filesystem in some operating systems. Altogether, this solution might be concidered a modern versioning file system. Can someone verify this, and change the article accordingly? Michael R. 14:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NTFS

What about NTFS's versioning through file's alternate datastreams? Shouldn't it be considered as a kind of versioning file system?

I mentioned NTFS, although it would be surprising if it was done via alternate streams. (Doc aberdeen 00:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Surprisingly enough, it is. And it doesn't show up on the file size (which is just the size of the unnamed stream) or on the directory size.

Ummmm, no it isn't. NTFS does not keep versions of the files that it manages. The closest thing that some Windows boxes have for versioning is Shadow Copies, and that uses a separate cache file (or hardware), and not alternate datastreams. If you're talking about the "Version" tab of the File → Properties dialog in Explorer, please realize that that has nothing to do with Versioning File Systems.

TOPS20

I'm fairly certain that the file system used in ITS, which started development on the PDP-6, is far older than TOPS20. It's a bit of an oddity, though, since it don't have to be a versioning file system, but can be if you give your files a number (which will then be incremented automatically). Does that feature disqualify ITS? Otherwise I suggest it was the oldest file system with versioning, unless someone can tell us that WAITS or some other oddity was earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.24.166 (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, ITS counted as a versioning file system, and predated TENEX (which became TOPS-20). I am changing the article. ScottBurson (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A slight clarification: ITS dates to 1967, and TENEX to 1969, so ITS is not "far older". Still, it's a bit older. On the other hand, I do not know for a fact that ITS had versioning from the beginning; it could have borrowed it from TENEX, AFAIK. I have edited the page to suggest that ITS was probably first, but not to claim this outright. ScottBurson (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing information

I am removing information related to the following:

It says in their descriptions that they are not versioning file systems, so they are not relevant to the article. Gh5046 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not versioning filesystems, although their GUI presentations may give this impression. In fact, they are all essentially front-ends for the rsync command:

rsync -aP --link-dest=PATHTO/$PREVIOUSBACKUP $SOURCE $CURRENTBACKUP

I'd recommend giving some indication of ho many of these filesystems are using straight copy-on-write, and mentioning that rsync derivative backup solutions use hard links for precisely this function. 78.148.242.178 (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

btrfs

Is btrfs really a versioning file system? It doesn't say so on its page. --91.67.244.235 (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]