| From: | Neil Bothwick |
| Date: | 14 May 2000 at 11:11:12 |
| Subject: | Re: PFS2 - 3 Upgrade (Long) |
Don Cox said,
> On 13-May-00, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> The PFS disk reported 88MB free when formatted and held 88MB of files.
>> The FFS disk reported 95MB and held 86-87MB of files.
> It's going to depend on the size of the files and the block size of the
> FFS disk. If you copy a lot of small files from a 1024-byte block FFS
> drive to a 16k byte block FFS disk, they will take up at least twice as much
> space.
I used a 512 bytes block size on both, larger sizes don't make much
sense on a Zip disk. The files were a typical mix of a range of sizes. A
normal boot partition containing system, program and data files.
> So some combinations of files with FFS settings may take more space than
> PFS3, others less.
PFS is supposed to free up unused directory space if the disk fills
before it's all used, such as when you have a few large files.
> Isn't the main claim to fame of PFS that if a save is interrupted, it
> doesn't perform a time-consuming check of the whole drive? Validating a
> drive in case of doubt was a good thing when drives were 40Megs, but
> takes too long on a 600 Meg partition containing many thousands of
> files.
That's one advantage, the main one is the sheer speed. I installed
Pagestream4 onto a FFS Zip disk yesterday. It took well over a minute to
load :(
> I suppose this question will get less important when we have operating
> systems that don't crash.
And 100% reliable power companies. Exterminating all cats would help too :)
Neil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net.
Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now:
http://click.egroups.com/1/2345/3/_/468125/_/958299274/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails