home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
- Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!darwin.sura.net!ra!tantalus.nrl.navy.mil!eric
- From: eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale)
- Subject: Re: CDROM for 386bsd (Re: ftp software inc, their address is...)
- Message-ID: <Bxo690.48I@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
- Sender: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil
- Organization: Naval Research Laboratory
- References: <AWB.92Nov12101926@otter.uk.ac.ed.aisb> <1992Nov13.073252.9757@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:31:47 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <1992Nov13.073252.9757@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
- >The most important is to optimise the utilisation of the CDROM. Being a
- >read only memory system, the McIntosh FS is better in being an extent based,
- >but it is too far away form 386bsd.
- > Maybe a slightly modified bsd FFS, can be used, with a few options:
- >
- >i) large block sizes, e.g. 32kbyte so that we can put 320k without any
- >indirect inode pointers. Larger than this will cause too much fragmentation,
- >because a fragment size of 1k will not be able to fill in the gaps.
- > This method is attractive because there is no modification to 386bsd
- >FFS,
- >
- >ii) Change it slightly to use extent based FS. I've no idea how difficult it
- >will be.
-
- I can think of *no* good reason to avoid using ISO9660. There are no
- performance drawbacks, and if you use the Rock Ridge extensions you can even
- have normal unix filenames, modes, uid/gid, block and character devices and
- deep directories, all within the ISO9660 standard. The linux filesystem
- already supports the Rock Ridge extensions (I don't know about 386bsd). All of
- the files on ISO9660 are already contiguous so you do not have to worry about
- indirect inode pointers and other such things.
-
- -Eric
- --
- Eric Youngdale
-