Michael L. VanLoon wrote:

> Actually, it probably looks more like LFS than FFS. :-)  It's been
> awhile since I read up on it, but if I remember correctly, it's
> essentially a log-based file system at heart.  Internally, it
> resembles FFS very little.  Unfortunately, it doesn't use cluster
> "fragments" like FFS does.  On the other hand, it has some very
> sophisticated recovery fault-tolerant features in its design.

And it has some realy nice flexibilities: it's directory structure
resembles a relational database with files as rows. The data in
the file is one column, security information is an optional other
column. And there maybe more columns (e.g. in fothcoming versions).
Actualy NT-server uses another column to store the resource
fork when serving Mac's via ethertalk. It also may hold index
information to speedup filename lookups.

It's a pitty the book mentioned in this thread doesn't go into low-level
details. It may be possible to reverse engineer NTFS with the help
of this book, but it wouldn't be painless.


Martin