home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.gpnet.it!news
- From: Mark Marin <megavolt@pop.gpnet.it>
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Subject: Re: AFS speed
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 19:15:16 +0100
- Organization: GP Net - Venezia - Italy
- Message-ID: <30FD3CB4.34AC@pop.gpnet.it>
- References: <4d7776$rru@detroit.freenet.org> <898.6587T1160T1958@mbox3.swipnet.se>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: @ts3105.gpnet.it
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b4 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
-
- Roland Bengtsson wrote:
- >
- > >:In one such case, the old Amiga FFS takes about 15 seconds to do what
- > >:the AFS takes about 70 seconds to do.
- >
- > AFS like big buffers! 50=minimum, 100=ok, 300=Faast according the manual.
- > Default for FFS is 30.
- >
- > You set this in HDToolbox.
- > --
-
- Has anybody tried comparing AFS with FFS, if you set both to a
- similar buffer size? I have my FFS set to 100 buffers, which helped
- greatly. I wonder if 300 would be comparable to AFS?
-
- I have read that if you have a few big files - AFS wastes space
- (sets up directory space even if it's not needed). OTOH if you have
- MANY small files, you fill up the directory space. So even though
- you have space on the drive, it's full as far as AFS is concerned.
- Can anyone confirm or deny this?
-
- For most things AFS saves space since it isn't forced to always use
- multiples of 512 bytes/block. I guess two (or more?) files can share
- one block. SOunds interesting - how well does it work?
-
- Mark
-