One of the most controversial parts of my earlier post, Don't Be a ZFS Hater, was when I mentioned off-handedly in the comments that I don't like case-insensitivity in filesystems.
Boy, did that spur a storm of replies.
I resolved to not pollute the ZFS discussion with a discussion of case-insensitivity and promised to make a separate blog post about it. It took a while, but this is that post. I blame a busy work schedule and an even busier travel schedule. (Recently in the span of two weeks I was in California, Ohio, London, Liverpool, London, Bristol, London, Amsterdam, London, then back to Ohio. Phew!)
Here's Why Case-Insensitive Filesystems Are Bad
I've worked in and around filesystems for most of my career; if not in the filesystem itself then usually a layer just above or below it. I'm speaking from experience when I tell you:
Case-insensitivity is a bad idea in filesystems.
And here's why:
- It's poorly defined.
- Every filesystem does it differently.
- Case-insensitivity is a layering violation.
- Case-insensitivity forces layering violations upon other code.
- Case-insensitivity is contagious.
- Case-insensitivity adds complexity and provides no actual benefit.
I'll expand on each of these below.
It's poorly defined
When I say "case-insensitive", what does that mean to you?
If you only speak one language and that language is English, it probably seems perfectly reasonable: map the letter a to A, b to B, and so on through z to Z. There, you're done. What was so hard about that?
But that's ASCII thinking; the world left that behind a long time ago. Modern systems are expected to deal with case differences in all sorts of languages. Instead of a simple 26-letter transformation, "case insensitivity" really means handling all the other alphabets too.
The problem with doing that, however, is that it brings language and orthography into the picture. And human languages are inherently vague, large, messy, and constantly evolving.
Can you make a strict definition of "case insensitivity" without any hand-waving?
One way to do it is with an equivalence table: start listing all the characters that are equal to other characters. We can go through all the variants of Latin alphabets, including a huge list of accents: acute, grave, circumflex, umlaut, tilde, cedilla, macron, breve, dot, ring, ogonek, hacek, and bar. Don't forget to find all the special ligatures and other letters, too, such as Æ vs æ and Ø vs ø.
Okay, our table is pretty big so far. Now let's start adding in other alphabets with case: Greek, Armenian, and the Cyrillic alphabets. And don't forget the more obscure ones, like Coptic. Phew. It's getting pretty big.
Did we miss any? Well, for any given version of the Unicode standard it's always possible to enumerate all letters, so it's certainly possible to do all the legwork and prove that we've got all the case mappings for, say, Unicode 5.0.0 which is the latest at the time of this writing. But Unicode is an evolving standard and new characters are added frequently. Every time a new script with case is added we'll need to update our table.
There are also some other hard questions for case insensitivity:
Digraph characters may have three equivalent mappings, depending on how they are being written: all-lowercase, all-uppercase, or title-case. (For example: ǳ, Ǳ, or ǲ.) But this breaks some case-mapping tables which didn't anticipate the need for an N-way equivalence.
The German letter ß is considered equal to lowercase ss. Should "Straße" and "STRASSE" be considered equivalent? They are in German. But this breaks some case-mapping tables which didn't anticipate the need for an N-to-M character translation (1:2, in this case).
Capital letters can significantly alter the meaning of a word or phrase. In German, capital letters indicate nouns, so the word Essen means "food", while the word essen means "to eat". We make similar distinctions in English between proper nouns and regular nouns: God vs god, China vs china, Turkey vs turkey, and so on. Should "essen" and "Essen", or "china" and "China" really be considered equivalent?
Some Hebrew letters use different forms when at the end of a word, such as פ vs ף, or נ vs ן. Are these equivalent?
In Georgian, people recently experimented with using an obsolete alphabet called Asomtavruli to reintroduce capital letters to the written language. What if this had caught on?
What about any future characters which are not present in the current version of the Unicode standard?
Case is a concept that is built into written languages. And human language is inherently messy. This means that case-insensitivity is always going to be poorly defined, no matter how hard we try.
Every filesystem does it differently
Unfortunately, filesystems can't engage in hand-waving. Filesystem data must be persistent and forward-compatible. People expect that the data they wrote to a disk last year should still be readable this year, even if they've had an operating system upgrade.
That's a perfectly reasonable expectation. But it means that the on-disk filesystem specification needs to freeze and stop changing when it's released to the world.
Because our notion of what exactly "case-insensitive" means has changed over the past twenty years, however, we've seen a number of different methods of case-insensitivity emerge.
Here are a handful of the most popular case-insensitive filesystems and how they handle case-mapping:
- FAT-32: ASCII upper- and lower-case letters, but a-z and A-Z are considered identical. Also variable IBM code pages in high ASCII.
- HFS: ASCII upper- and lower-case letters, but a-z and A-Z are considered identical. Also variable Mac encodings in high ASCII.
- NTFS: Case-insensitive in different ways depending on the version of Windows that created the volume.
- HFS+: Case-insensitive with a mapping table which was frozen circa 1996, and thus lacks case mappings for any newer characters.
None of these — except for NTFS created by Vista — are actually up-to-date with the current Unicode specification. That's because they all predate it. Similarly, if a new filesystem were to introduce case-insensitivity today, it would be locked into, say, Unicode 5.0.0's case mappings. And that would be all well and good until Unicode 5.1.0 came along.
The history of filesystems is littered with broken historical case mappings like a trail of tears.
Case-insensitivity is a layering violation
When people argue for case-insensitivity in the filesystem, they almost always give user interface reasons for it. (The only other arguments I've seen are based on contagion, which I'll talk about in a moment.) Here is the canonical example:
My Aunt Tillie doesn't know the difference between letter.txt and Letter.txt. The filesystem should help her out.
But in fact this is a UI problem. The problem relates to the display and management of information, not the storage of this information.
Don't believe me?
When any application displays items in a window, who sorts them case-insensitively? The filesystem? No! The application does it.
When you type-select, typing b-a-b-y to select the folder "Baby Pictures" in an application, who does the case-insensitive mapping of the letters you type to the files you select? The filesystem? No! The application again.
When you save or copy files, who does the case-insensitive test to warn you if you're creating "file.txt" when "File.txt" already exists? The filesystem? Yes!
Why does the third question have a different answer than the rest?
And we've already talked about how filesystems are chronically out-of-date with their case mappings. If your aunt is a Turkish Mac user, for example, she's probably going to notice that the behavior of the third one is different for no good reason. Why are you confusing your Aunt Tülay?
Yes, Aunt Tillie will think that "Muffin Recipe.rtf" and "muffin recipe.rtf" ought to be the same file. But you know what? She'll also think that "Muffin Recipe .rtf" and "Recipe for Muffins.rtf" and "Mufin Recipe.txt" ought to be the same file too.
Users already don't generally understand how the OS decides whether two files are the same or not. Trying to alleviate this problem by mapping names with different case to the same file solves only 1% of the problem and just isn't worth the effort.
I agree completely.
Case-insensitivity forces layering violations upon other code
All too often, pieces of code around the system are required to hard-code knowledge about case-insensitive filesystem behavior. Here are a few examples off the top of my head:
Collision prediction. An application may need to know if two files would conflict before it actually writes either of them to disk. If you are writing an application where a user creates a group of documents — a web page editor, perhaps — you may need to know when banana.jpg and BANANA.JPG will conflict.
The most common way that programmers solve this is by hard-coding some knowledge about the case-insensitivity of the filesystem in their code. That's a classic layering violation.
Filename hashing. If you are writing code to hash strings that are filenames, you probably want equivalent paths to generate the same hash. But it's impossible to know which files are equivalent unless you know the filesystem's rules for case-mapping.
Again, the most common solution is a layering violation. You either hard-code some knowledge about the case-insensitivity tables, or you hard-code some knowledge about your input data. (For example, you may just require that you'll never, never, ever have multiple access paths for the same file in your input data. Like all layering violations, that might work wonderfully for a while ... right up until the day that it fails miserably.)
I'm sure there are more examples out there.
Case-insensitivity is contagious
This is the worst part. It's all too easy to accidentally introduce a dependence on case-insensitivity: just use an incorrect path with bad case.
The moment somebody creates an application or other system that inadvertently depends on case-insensitivity, it forces people to use a case-insensitive filesystem if they want to use that app or system. And that's one of the major reasons why case-insensitivity has stuck around — because it's historically been very difficult to get rid of.
I've seen this happen with:
Source code. Some bozo writes #include "utils.h" when the file is named Utils.h. Sounds innocent enough, until you find that it's repeated dozens of times across hundreds of files. Now that project can only ever be compiled on a case-insensitive filesystem.
Game assets. A game tries to load lipsync.dat instead of LIPSYNC.DAT. Without knowing it, the artist or developer has accidentally locked that game so that it can only run on a case-insensitive filesystem. (This causes real, constant problems in game pipelines; teams create and test their games on case-insensitive NTFS and don't notice such problems until it's burned to a case-sensitive UDF filesystem on DVD or Blu-Ray.)
Application libraries. DLLs and shared library references are sometimes generated by a build script which uses the wrong case. When that happens, the application may simply fail to launch from a case-sensitive filesystem.
Miscellaneous data files. Sometimes an application will appear to run on a case-sensitive filesystem but some feature will fail to work because it fails to load a critical data file: the spell-checking dictionary, a required font, a nib, you name it.
Happily, since Mac OS X shipped in 2001, Apple has been busy solving its own problems with case-insensitivity and encouraging its developers to test with case-sensitive filesystems. Two important initiatives in this direction have been NFS home directories and case-sensitive HFSX.
The upshot of it is that Mac OS X is actually very friendly to case-sensitive disks these days; very little that's bad happens when you use case-sensitive HFSX today.
Case-insensitivity adds complexity with no actual benefit
I'm going to make an assertion here:
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the path lookups happening on your Mac right now are made with correct case.
Think about that for a moment.
First off, you may think this contradicts the point I just made in the previous section. Nope; I'm simply rounding. The actual figure is something like 99.999%, and I'd probably get tired of typing 9's before I actually approached the real number. There are infinitesimally few path accesses made with incorrect case compared to the ones that are made with the proper case.
Modern computers make hundreds of filesystem accesses per second. As I type this single sentence in MarsEdit on Mac OS X 10.4.11, my computer has made 3692 filesystem accesses by path. (Yes, really. MarsEdit's "Preview" window is invoking Perl to run Markdown, which loads a handful of modules, and then WebKit re-renders the page. That's a lot of it, but meanwhile there's background activity from Mail, Activity Monitor, iChat, SystemUIServer, iCalAlarmScheduler, AirPort Base Station Agent, Radioshift, NetNewsWire, Twitterrific, and Safari.)
Under Mac OS X you can measure it yourself with this command in Terminal:
sudo fs_usage -f filesys | grep / > /tmp/accesses.txt
The vast majority of file accesses are made with paths that were returned from the filesystem itself: some bit of code read the contents of a directory, and passed the results on to another bit of code, which eventually decided to access one of those files. So most of the time the filesystem is getting back the paths that it has returned earlier. Very very few accesses are made with paths that come directly from an error-prone human, which is why essentially 100% of filesystem accesses are made with correct case.
But if essentially all filesystem accesses are made with the correct case to begin with, why do we even have case-insensitivity at all?
We've already discussed the problems of contagion, which is a circular justification: we have to do it because someone else did it first. We've also discussed UI decisions being incorrectly implemented in the bottommost layer of the operating system. Other than those two, what good is it?
I don't have an answer to that. For the life of me I can't come up with any reason to justify case-insensitive filesystems from a pure design standpoint. That leads me to my closing argument, which is...
A thought experiment
Suppose case-insensitive filesystems had never been invented. You're the leader of a team of engineers in charge of XYZZYFS, the next big thing in filesystems. One day you tell the other people who work on it:
"Hey! I've got this great idea! It's called case-insensitivity. We'll take every path that comes into the filesystem and compare it against a huge table to create a case-folded version of the path which we'll use for comparisons and sorting. This will add a bunch of complexity to the code, slow down all path lookups, increase our RAM footprint, make it more difficult for users of our filesystem to handle paths, and create a compatibility nightmare for future versions if we ever decide to change the table. But, you see, it'll all be worth it, because... _________________."
Can you fill in the blank?