Talk:Clustered file system

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clustered file system article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Duplication

This article is a near duplicate of another one: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Shared_disk_file_system robo (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have since been merged. -- Beland (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality

Surprisingly for these , not a totally incorrect piece of text, but has almost no sources, hence the tags. But it does include several WP:OR conclusions. Not on my path to fix now, so needs help from someone else. History2007 (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite!

Well, "clustered file system" is certainly not the most typical notion discussed herein, although it may be the most general. The plain old client-server network file systems (which redirects here) should be discussed well before the latest and greatest that Google runs etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this is hardly consensus for merge in the direction that was done here. It's more like proof there are enough mostly clueless editors around here, but they are persistent. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to my Google Books search "network file system" has about an order of magnitude more hits than "clustered file system", so that backs up my intuition as to what should be the main/lead topic here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same thing. A network file system is a type of file system in which a server serves files to clients over the network. A distributed file system, or clustered file system, is a type of file system in which files are distributed across multiple servers. Clearly, this is not the same thing. Rp (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

rename

I suggest renaming this article (currently "clustered file system") to "network file system", as mentioned above. In various discussions -- alas, now scattered over talk: network file system, talk: distributed file system, talk: Network File System, Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force/Archive 1#Network file systems, etc. -- several people have mentioned that "network file system" is a more common term than "clustered file system".

And so an article about the general concept should be named "network file system" in compliance with WP:COMMONNAME. --DavidCary (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: "Clustered file system" isn't such a great article title, but the proposed renaming would make this article too ambiguous – let's remember that we already have the Network File System. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, thank you for pointing that out. Yes, I agree that having 2 Wikipedia articles that differ *only* in case is confusing. My understanding is that the Network File System (NFS) is a specific example of the general category of systems that allow access to files over a network (i.e., a specific example of a network file system). I think there is a WP:BROADCONCEPT guideline that covers cases like that. Was this already discussed near talk: network file system#Distributed.2C networked and cluster file systems? --DavidCary (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Well, the things are quite complicated... NFS is just one of the networked files systems, and it works by making it possible for multiple computers to share the same remote file system, at the file system–level; also, the actual file system backend isn't distributed in the case of NFS. On the other hand, other networked/clustered file systems are dealing with other approaches – some of them are allowing multiple computers to share the same remote storage at the block level (usually called shared-disk file systems), others are (also) providing distributed and redundant file system backends (so they're called distributed file systems) etc. The above linked discussion is dealing with some of those differences; however, it's a very terse discussion. :)

The only good new title for this article would be "Networked file systems", in my opinion, and it could fit better, as nobody needs a cluster in order to use a NAS which is also briefly described in this article, for example. Though, such renaming is still highly debatable. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two different concepts are being confused here

The article as it stands and the discussion above confuse two different notions:

a network file system, shared file system, remote file system or whatever other term you prefer: a file system of which the files are stored remotely on a server; usually, these same files are made available to multiple client computers, so their usage is distributed, but their storage usually isn't;
a distributed file system or clustered file system, which is a special type of network file system in which not only usage of the files, but also storage of the files is distributed; there is not a single file server, but instead, a pool of servers that collectively serve the files to the clients belonging to what the client sees as a single file system.

If nobody objects, I will rewrite the article to be exclusively about the latter type of system. Rp (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Any chances, please, for elaborating a bit on why should the article be restricted to the second bullet above? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the title says the article is about. Rp (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Distributed file system for cloud

I think that the article "Distributed file system for cloud" should be merged into the section "Distributed file systems" of this article. It is on the same topic and may be useful to that section. Goose121 (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The source article is larger than the entire target article. You would either overwhelm the target or lose well-documented information from the source. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentMaybe we could use Template:Main article. That way, it's still categorized on this page but we keep all of the info on the other page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goose121 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any particular section for which "Distributed file system for cloud" would be the main article. There's also the possibility of including it in the "See also" section. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be the main article for "Distributed file system", since they are about the same thing. Goose121 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Distributed file system" section isn't a summary of "Distributed file system for cloud", so {{Main article}} wouldn't be appropriate. {{Further information}} might be more appropriate. However, there's now a link to "Distributed file system for cloud" in the "See also" section. I don't see why that can't suffice. Also, I don't think there's going to be a merge, so someone should remove the merge templates. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article still need additional citations for verification?

I originally got involved in editing this article because I needed someplace to move Rmokadem's new ref in Backup, which fairly obviously didn't belong in that article—which is about backing up data that is already in secondary storage. Having done the move, I noticed three "citation needed" tags (please excuse me if "tags" is the wrong WP term), plus the fact that the URL in the first existing ref no longer worked. So I fixed those to the best of my ability, which extends only as far as a 24-year-old non-PhD-track M.S. in Computer Science can carry me. Someone please check my new refs to make sure they are appropriate. If they are, I propose to remove the "refimprove" tag at the top of the article. Any thoughts? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]