• Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    KennyR
    Posts: 586 from 2003/3/4
    From: #AmigaZeux, Gu...
    Quote:

    Jim wrote:
    @KennyR:

    So, basically, count Linux out on those two filesystems.
    Well, there's always FAT.

    And to summarize, FFS is probably a better choice than SFS for cross compatibility between OS4 and MorphOS.


    FFS DOSType 03 is indeed the best you can go for in terms of compatibility. Classic can read it, Linux can read it, MOS and OS4 can read it. Even WB1.3 can read it, assuming you have FFS v34 around and a mountlist. There are no different implementations, it's all the same, with FFS2 actually having some bugs fixed. Its performance is pretty poor compared to SFS (despite what I've heard from people who should know better - seriously, go get Diskspeed and bench it against PFS/SFS yourself).

    Here's my results from many years back:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/q7et37y8u6oxq3y/DiskSpeed.Results.pdf

    What totally put me off using FFS or FFS2 was the validation time. If you happened to crash while writing, validation would take AAAGES. I remember it took hours on an old Amiga drive, but with a modern drive and 10,000s of files, it can very literally take days - and think what it's doing to your drive. If it fails to validate, which is relatively rare but not unknown, you won't be able to use Disksalv as it's 32-bit; you can still get the files out but it'll still take forever to copy them with the partition in an unvalidated state.

    So while FFS is definitely your go-to for compatibility, if I were you I'd put anything likely to write a lot on an SFS partition to save you that validation headache. Biggest offender is browser cache. As for the performance loss, as long as you don't stick hundreds of files in one directory, chances are you won't even notice.

    [ Edited by KennyR 03.11.2017 - 10:06 ]
  • »03.11.17 - 11:03
    Profile