OSDev.org

I'm curious what file system you use for your OS.
The reason I wonna know is that I'm wondering which FS to implement or to invent one.Since I'm a FreeBSD user my natural instinct told me to use Berkeley's FS but aftert a week os searching and googling i didn't found enough information.All I have are the sources from from my BSD distribution but they are very poor comented which discouraged me.My second choice was the Simple File System or SFS http://bcos.zapto.org/sfs/index.html but it doesn't support file attributes.I'm wondering if it would be a headache if I stick to ext2fs.I'm not familiar with ext2fs but it's well documented and is much easier than Berkeleys's I think.

I recommend FAT12/16/32.
FAT is widely supported and not difficult to understand(for the major part,however to implement long name support is a bit complicated,but you can as well complete only the basis part).The main idea is a linked list for every cluster owned by each file stored in the FAT(s) on the volume.
There're many options in FAT stantard but if for your own use you can set them to fixed values.
It seems better to read both Microsoft official document and other in-a-nut-shell versions for a view...And better to read the latter one first because the official one mix many details together and has some statement confusing(maybe just to me ).
My driver for FAT is still in progress.

You may not like this being a FreeBSD user but the first system I intend to implement is FAT12/32 because I am devving in Windows and currently boot off a FAT12 formatted floppy disk (image!).

I think that ext2fs will be next on the list, simply because I want my OS to be able to co-exist happily with either Linux or Windows partitions. I see this as a big consideration because I don't see people installing my OS on its own any time soon (in the next 50 years ) and being able to ament my OS's data from within Windows or Linux is a *big* consideration, IMHO.

Although I haven't attempted any FS code yet, I get the feeling from other peoples goals that my wish to also support NTFS may be a little way off!

Cheers,
Adam

Oh, and this wiki page, if you haven't already seen it, is a fairly nice summary. If you want specific details, the list of file systems is also quite useful.

Adam

Also,if you want to have alternative FSes implementation in the future,you may like to implement a virtual FL for a uniform interface providing all the basic functioins a FS needs.

Never thought of virtual FS layer.Thanks for the advice 'm'.By the way does anybody have some impressions of the SFS.

SFS is lean, mean, and easy, but it comes with the cost of few features and low efficiency. For single-user OSes its good, for multi-user OSes you may want to try Ext2fs which is more suited.