Poster | Thread |
NutsAboutAmiga
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 1-Sep-2014 2:52:11
| | [ #21 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 9-Jun-2004 Posts: 12795
From: Norway | | |
|
| @Hypex
Windows2000/XP/7/8 use NTFS as primary FS. The best programs out there is not made by Microsoft, like it was back in 80 and 90's. Only problem is that you don't always know what you get when you install some thing from some one else, so mutch adware and repackaging. Before you know it you have installed some spy-ware or ad-ware. Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 01-Sep-2014 at 03:03 AM.
_________________ http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/ Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
itix
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 1-Sep-2014 9:31:17
| | [ #22 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 22-Dec-2004 Posts: 3398
From: Freedom world | | |
|
| @Hypex
What repair tools your AmigaOne had to repair this filesystem? _________________ Amiga Developer Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hypex
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 1-Sep-2014 16:14:47
| | [ #23 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 6-May-2007 Posts: 11180
From: Greensborough, Australia | | |
|
| @NutsAboutAmiga
On C volume NTFS would be used, yes, but not on the flash drives I use for sharing. I'd be quite upset if I payed to install adware. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hypex
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 1-Sep-2014 16:17:12
| | [ #24 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 6-May-2007 Posts: 11180
From: Greensborough, Australia | | |
|
| @itix
Sorry, in what context? For FAT or other? I had no repair tool for FAT on my AmigaOne. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
logicalheart
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 1-Sep-2014 18:01:13
| | [ #25 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 2-Dec-2003 Posts: 696
From: Sandy, Utah. USA | | |
|
| @Ancalimon
I've been using FFS on my hard disks for 7 years with no problem. I use it on my AmigaOne, Sam440, Sam460, and X1000. I'm only using 80 GB drives, but don't know if that matters.
_________________ http://www.hostcove.com http://www.youtube.com/hostcove Sam460 : X1000 : X5000 |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Ancalimon
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 2-Sep-2014 5:13:30
| | [ #26 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 23-Mar-2004 Posts: 433
From: Istanbul | | |
|
| @logicalheart
It doesn't matter. fastfilesystem is designed for floppy disks. Being not suitable for harddrives does not mean being unreliable. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hypex
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 2-Sep-2014 7:31:56
| | [ #27 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 6-May-2007 Posts: 11180
From: Greensborough, Australia | | |
|
| @Ancalimon
AFAIK FAT was also designed for floppy disk, but that didn't stop it being used as a main filesystem before NTFS replaced it. And now it still hasn't gone away because the world decided to infect the portable media that replaced the floppy with FAT even today!
Even so, despite where FFS came from, what things would be bad about it using it for a HD? Last edited by Hypex on 02-Sep-2014 at 04:34 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
olsen
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 2-Sep-2014 10:08:59
| | [ #28 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 15-Aug-2004 Posts: 774
From: Germany | | |
|
| @Ancalimon
Quote:
Ancalimon wrote: @logicalheart
It doesn't matter. fastfilesystem is designed for floppy disks. Being not suitable for harddrives does not mean being unreliable. |
Actually, the FFS was specifically designed for hard disk use.
The original file system was designed for floppy disk use: each data block (= the contents of each file) stored contained a checksum so that errors could be detected. If you wanted to read from a file, the file system would have to read each data block in sequence, verify the checksum and copy the data block payload to the client buffer. Not only was the floppy disk slow to read, the file system spent additional time on processing the file data.
The data block checksums were removed in the FFS disk format, which made reading the file data much faster. If the data blocks to read/write were stored in sequence, the FFS could access them in a consecutive operation, using the disk controller's DMA, and not spend extra time verifying the checksums and copying the data block payload to the client buffer.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
olsen
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 2-Sep-2014 10:30:23
| | [ #29 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 15-Aug-2004 Posts: 774
From: Germany | | |
|
| @Hypex
Quote:
Even so, despite where FFS came from, what things would be bad about it using it for a HD? |
In two words: poor scalability.
The amount of bookkeeping work which the FFS needs to do in addition to the task at hand (reading a file, writing a file, finding or creating a directory entry) increases at a faster rate than the size of the volume increases.
Also, the amount of bookkeeping data needed in addition to the data being managed in on-disk structures, increases at the same rate as the size of the volume increases, which is bad, too.Last edited by olsen on 02-Sep-2014 at 10:51 AM. Last edited by olsen on 02-Sep-2014 at 10:47 AM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Chris_Y
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 2-Sep-2014 11:31:13
| | [ #30 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 21-Jun-2003 Posts: 3203
From: Beds, UK | | |
|
| @olsen
Quote:
Actually, the FFS was specifically designed for hard disk use.
|
And just to add to that, it was (AFAIK) impossible to use FFS on floppy disks until AmigaOS 2.04 - yet v1.3 supported it on HD.
_________________ "Miracles we do at once, the impossible takes a little longer" - AJS on Hyperion Avatar is Tabitha by Eric W Schwartz |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Nibunnoichi
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 2-Sep-2014 11:46:55
| | [ #31 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 18-Nov-2004 Posts: 969
From: Roma + Lecco, Italia | | |
|
| @Hypex
Quote:
Hypex wrote: @Ancalimon ADFAIK FAT was also designed for floppy disk, but that didn't stop it being used as a main filesystem before NTFS replaced it. And now it still hasn't gone away because the world decided to infect the portable media that replaced the floppy with FAT even today!
|
I believe you're confusing things by using a too generic nomenclature FAT and FAT12 (and their ancestor) were designed for floppy usage. FAT16 already supported harddiscs in fact IIRC it debuted with one of the first HD equipped IBMs. What you see in use today are FAT32 and exFAT, a bit different, they became a sort of de-facto standard because they were the only for which any OS has/had at least read capabilities.
Last edited by Nibunnoichi on 02-Sep-2014 at 11:47 AM.
_________________ Proud Amigan since 1987 Owner of various Commodore and a SAM440ep\OS4.1FE See them on http://retro.furinkan.org/ |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
olsen
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 2-Sep-2014 11:48:50
| | [ #32 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 15-Aug-2004 Posts: 774
From: Germany | | |
|
| @Chris_Y
Quote:
Chris_Y wrote: @olsen
Quote:
Actually, the FFS was specifically designed for hard disk use.
|
And just to add to that, it was (AFAIK) impossible to use FFS on floppy disks until AmigaOS 2.04 - yet v1.3 supported it on HD.
|
You could use it, but "some assembly" was required And if you did manage to use it on floppy disks, the FFS would not detect media changes because that type of functionality was not needed for hard disk drives. If I remember correctly, the FFS also used a shorter spindown interval for flushing written data to disk than the original file system, which ironically could result in worse write performance. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hypex
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 2-Sep-2014 16:39:18
| | [ #33 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 6-May-2007 Posts: 11180
From: Greensborough, Australia | | |
|
| @Chris_Y
That's right. I had these FFS formatted floppies that came up as NDOS. I had to create a mountlist but it was still messy. Perhaps no more than CrossDOS sharing a mount on the same drive. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hypex
| |
Re: Harddrive validating like a mad man. FFS vs SFS vs PPS Posted on 2-Sep-2014 16:41:06
| | [ #34 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 6-May-2007 Posts: 11180
From: Greensborough, Australia | | |
|
| @Nibunnoichi
That's exactly my point. All obviously had their roots in the orginal FAT. FFS had its roots in the OFS. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|