Timeline for What are functional differences between tree-like/hierarchical and flat file systems?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 26, 2014 at 5:43 | history | edited | Volker Siegel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1853 characters in body
|
| Sep 26, 2014 at 4:25 | comment | added | Volker Siegel | Yes, makes sense - I'll add something | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 4:15 | comment | added | Ogen | I've heard that Cameras have flat file systems to store the images on them. | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 4:10 | comment | added | Volker Siegel | Do you also think about flat filesystems used today for special cases? I think there are some pretty unusual structures in distributed filesystems. | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 4:08 | comment | added | Volker Siegel | They have existed because they are much simpler, and save some memory. And because there was no need for handling many files - the computer could not handle them anyway. | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 4:06 | comment | added | Volker Siegel | I think it's long ago that everybody started to use tree filesystems? The first versions of CP/M or maybe DOS had a flat filesystem. | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 4:05 | history | edited | Volker Siegel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 543 characters in body
|
| Sep 26, 2014 at 4:04 | vote | accept | Ogen | ||
| Sep 26, 2014 at 3:58 | comment | added | Ogen | So why do flat file systems exist? Surely there must be some advantages. The only one I can think of is that flat file systems save memory because you don't need sub-directories. Is this true? | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 3:55 | history | answered | Volker Siegel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |