Recommended Posts

Microsoft?s new Windows 8 Resilient File System (ReFS) will be server only

Microsoft?s new file system for Windows 8 will only be available in server variants of the operating system, WinRumors has learned.

The software maker is currently readying a new file system as an offshoot to the original concept of Windows Future Storage (WinFS). According to sources familiar with the company?s plans, the new file system is called Resilient File System. The project originally started out as Monolithic NTFS (MNTFS) and then ended up codenamed Protogon before the final Resilient File System (ReFS) naming was chosen. Screenshots from the latest Windows 8 builds surfaced on Thursday demonstrating the new file system in action.

The naming reveals some of the concepts around what Microsoft is trying to achieve with the new file system. The idea is that server variants of Windows 8 will be able to utilise the new technology to improve file system resilience to hardware and software errors. The technology will not be widely used and is designed for specific use by server administrators. As a result, client versions of Windows 8 will not be able to utilise the new file system according to our sources.

Microsoft?s original Windows Future Storage (WinFS) concept made its way into Longhorn (Windows Vista) builds during the early beta phases. WinFS was first demonstrated in 2003 at the company?s Professional Developers Conference. Microsoft promised an advanced storage subsystem designed to manage data by means of a database. The WinFS database would allow any type of information to be stored in it alongside a defined schema for the data type. The idea was to speed up searching and data sharing between applications. Microsoft ditched the idea before Windows Vista was brought to market.

Microsoft hasn?t publicly discussed any plans to incorporate a new file system in Windows 8. The software giant did detail its large disk and large sector support in Windows 8 earlier this week. Microsoft plans to make it possible to install Windows 8 and boot from a 3TB or bigger hard disk. The support will be possible with UEFI firmware systems that allow Microsoft to take advantage of new partitioning techniques to better manage data stored on large disks.

Source: WinRumors

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1042591-microsoft/
Share on other sites

Wow... that's too bad (N)

At first they can't incorporate it at all (WinFS) and then they make it server-exclusive.

Well, who knows what it's good for... :/

Glassed Silver:mac

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1042591-microsoft/#findComment-594490611
Share on other sites

I have doubts on this "rumor". It appeared as a fully functional feature in the drive management function of a client build, that means the user can format a drive in ReFS, then found the drive is useless? Doesn't sound reasonable to me. :(

Just because a feature appeared in a build doesn't mean it'll stay there until final.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1042591-microsoft/#findComment-594491417
Share on other sites

Quite possible. Maybe it's designed for Server 2012's Storage Pools and Storage Spaces features.

Just because a feature appeared in a build doesn't mean it'll stay there until final.

Yeah, I know, but all of this atm are just rumors and speculations, guess we just have to wait and see.

btw, I got a unconfirmed(repeat: unconfirmed) tip-off: the beta is expected to be installable on ReFS, and also expects to install and run faster. So, let's see how things would develop. :/

Edit: I don't exactly know what canouna meant by "work great"; just have to wait for more infos.

image_126.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1042591-microsoft/#findComment-594491473
Share on other sites

I hope they include they hash type security/integrity on files similar to ZFS, as i think this would be the biggest feature to stop data rot.

It may be server only as like ZFS it may have some heavy requirements, if so then the small percentage of users who might benefit might not have been a compelling reason to bump the requires from say 1GB to 4GB (example).

Im still a big fan of NTFS, with the upgrades they have done over the years there is plenty of life in the FS and i don't see it disappearing to soon. My only wish was that the specification for NTFS was open so Linux and Mac users could have proper read write access to it, i would use it on all devices, from USB Sticks to External Hard Disks instead of ExFAT.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1042591-microsoft/#findComment-594491483
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know, but all of this atm are just rumors and speculations, guess we just have to wait and see.

btw, I got a unconfirmed(repeat: unconfirmed) tip-off: the beta is expected to be installable on ReFS, and also expects to install and run faster. So, let's see how things would develop. :/

Edit: I don't exactly know what canouna meant by "work great"; just have to wait for more infos.

image_126.jpg

From what it sounds like he is running a newer build and it is running off ReFS already - I have a feeling it will be in the client version but only used in specific case scenarios rather than it being the default.

Regarding people invoking ZFS - I suggest they look at the file system, or better still use it with Solaris 11 then come back and say, "sure, that'll have no problems running on a 32bit computer with 2GB of memory".

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1042591-microsoft/#findComment-594495749
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

I hope they include they hash type security/integrity on files similar to ZFS, as i think this would be the biggest feature to stop data rot.

"Checksums (64-bit) are always turned on for ReFS metadata, and assuming that the volume is hosted on a mirrored Storage Space, automatic correction is also always turned on. All integrity streams (see below) are protected in the same way. This creates an end-to-end high integrity solution for the customer, where relatively unreliable storage can be made highly reliable."

If you have not read Steven Sinofsky's post on ReFS, you should read it over anyone else?s materials. It's just a wee bit less speculative and likely accurate than everything everyone else has been posting:

http://blogs.msdn.co...ndows-refs.aspx

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1042591-microsoft/#findComment-594615848
Share on other sites

There is no way to replace RAID on server a system. If they drive fails, it doesn't matter what filesystem is on it.

Erm, I'm not talking about FileSystems, I'm talking about the new Storage Spaces thingy.

That's what Storage Spaces is good for. At least the iteration that'll support at least RAID6 and 10 like redundancy.

^^ Yeah what he said.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1042591-microsoft/#findComment-594618856
Share on other sites

In Windows 8, ReFS will be introduced only as part of Windows Server 8, which is the same approach we have used for each and every file system introduction.

Source

Seems like if it's happened with file systems in the past, there is no reason why they would change it for ReFS.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1042591-microsoft/#findComment-594618860
Share on other sites

Storage Spaces as-is isn't really suited for enterprise storage. Small servers maybe, but that's it. With growing disk sizes, there's a significant statistical possibility for read errors messing with array rebuilds. That's why storage solutions introduced triple parity RAID a while ago (three parity disks in an array). Right now it offers equivalents to RAID5 and 2/3-way mirrors. Latter is OK, former not to much.

Furthermore, according to Microsoft itself in their B8 blog, ReFS+SS can't cope with online repair of bad data on parity spaces. So if you want safe data that's online 24/7, mirrors are your only option.

And finally, I'm sure you'll be able to format your stuff to ReFS from command line, like with Protogon. If refs.sys is missing in the client builds, steal it from the server ones. Both versions come from the same source tree and are 100% compatible to each other.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1042591-microsoft/#findComment-594618868
Share on other sites

[/i]

Source

Seems like if it's happened with file systems in the past, there is no reason why they would change it for ReFS.

Yes, they said that it would release in a Server release first before coming to the Desktop OS. I'm not sure how this is news. I figure the Desktop OS will likely have some support for it, but won't use it as the Server version does...

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1042591-microsoft/#findComment-594618878
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!