News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on HFS+ Bit Rot. Parent comment

Re:HFS+ Bit Rot by duskwuff on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @03:00AM (#7876767)
NTFS isn't a single bit better than HFS+ in terms of checksums.

Also, HFS wasn't used on the original Macintosh 128K -- that used a simpler filesystem called MFS. HFS was introduced with the Mac Plus a couple of years later.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HFS+ Bit Rot by MBCook on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @10:26AM (#7878139)
NTFS may not checksum everything, but I also never had it silently corrupt my files and helpfully provide me the 'missing parts' when I rebooted.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HFS+ Bit Rot by rbanffy on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @12:50PM (#7878979)
The most terrible thing with silent corruption is that, unless you verify your data, you'll never know it happened because it's, well, silent.

Have you checksummed your files lately?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HFS+ Bit Rot by Freaky on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @01:19PM (#7879156)
I've experienced silent corruption on NTFS. And it still modifies data in-place, so an unlucky power failure or reboot could still cause data loss. Thankfully Microsoft already have an answer, ReFS: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh84...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HFS+ Bit Rot by Elhana on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @01:39PM (#7879274)
Silent corruption can hit NTFS just as well. The only protection is to have a good hardware with ECC RAM, raid with redundancy and a FS that checks data on every read like zfs,btrfs,ReFS,... and backups.
[ Parent | on HN ]