AmiWest 2017 Demo
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9433 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > what issues would interfere with using FFS?

    According to http://library.morph.zone/Filesystems, Fast File System 2 (FFS) seems not so bad. It should be the same implementation by Olaf 'olsen' Barthel as used in OS4, up to and including DOS\6 and DOS\7 modes (long filenames). Unfortunately, the Linux FFS implementation lacks DOS\6 and DOS\7 modes, so if Linux should be able to access the partition, file name length is restricted to 31 characters.

    > are there any inherent issues with sharing an SFS partition with both MorphOS and Linux?

    The most inherent issue is probably that Linux doesn't know SFS by default. There is a kernel module available, but I don't know if it can be made to work with current kernel versions.
  • »01.11.17 - 13:33
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4338 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Quote:

    Andreas_Wolf wrote:
    > what issues would interfere with using FFS?

    According to http://library.morph.zone/Filesystems, Fast File System 2 (FFS) seems not so bad. It should be the same implementation by Olaf 'olsen' Barthel as used in OS4, up to and including DOS\6 and DOS\7 modes (long filenames). Unfortunately, the Linux FFS implementation lacks DOS\6 and DOS\7 modes, so if Linux should be able to access the partition, file name length is restricted to 31 characters.

    > are there any inherent issues with sharing an SFS partition with both MorphOS and Linux?

    The most inherent issue is probably that Linux doesn't know SFS by default. There is a kernel module available, but I don't know if it can be made to work with current kernel versions.


    Thanks, that's about the most useful post made so far in this matter.
    Now I have something to work with.
    Linux isn't essential.
    "Magnetic was troubled by my avatars and 'satanic' references" - Jim Igou

    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »01.11.17 - 14:29
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    KennyR
    Posts: 262 from 2003/3/4
    From: #AmigaZeux, Gu...
    Quote:

    Jim wrote:
    At the risk of being, yet again, berated, what issues would interfere with using FFS?

    And are there any inherent issues with sharing an SFS partition with both MorphOS and Linux?


    I think the asfs module is no longer maintained, and the affs one certainly doesn't support the DOS/06 and DOS/07 dostypes. When I tried they were simply not accessible, don't know if that has changed.

    Apart from that, lack of disk tools such as recovery and defrag are quite a knotty problem. Disksalv won't work with the newer FFS dostypes either, and was never 64-bit aware. Linux of course can't fix problems in FFS and SFS.
  • »01.11.17 - 18:42
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4338 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    @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.
    "Magnetic was troubled by my avatars and 'satanic' references" - Jim Igou

    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »01.11.17 - 21:34
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    KennyR
    Posts: 262 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 - 10:03
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9433 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    Addendum:

    > Fast File System 2 (FFS) [...] should be the same implementation by Olaf 'olsen' Barthel
    > as used in OS4, up to and including DOS\6 and DOS\7 modes (long filenames).

    I just read something interesting which was new to me:

    "A few years ago I had a go at disassembling FastFileSystem 45.13, the final version released by Amiga Inc. in OS 3.9 Boing Bag 2. [...] One interesting feature I found is code for DosType DOS\8, which seems to be intended to support longer filenames; up to 54 characters vs 30 for normal FFS."
    http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=858582

    "Enabled and fixed hidden partially implemented long file name support. If partition dos type is DOS\8, max file/directory name length gets increased to 54 characters (from 30) by using previously unused bytes of file/dir header block."
    http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=1188826

    "DOS\8 is identical to DOS\3 (international FFS) when there are no files with long names. So you can in-place convert an existing DOS\3 partition to DOS\8 just by changing the DosType in the first longword (and edit your mount file to reflect the new DosType). Similarly, you could convert back to DOS\3, providing you're certain that there are no files or directories with long names in the partition. Programs like DiskSalv and ReOrg won't of course work with DOS\8 partitions."
    http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=1188965

    "DOS/8 was "sort of present" already in the Os 3.9 version, but there not fully functional. It has 54 character long file names (so more than the usual 30), but is backwards compatible in the sense that the block layout is just like the one in DOS/1, except that unused fields are populated with the extra characters, so old tools will at worst damage the file name, but nothing else. Probably we'll keep DOS/8 inofficial, as it used to be."
    http://amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=833207

    "About the only thing that was present of DOS/8 in the 3.9 release is ExAll() and friends, and the computation of the maximum file size. Everything else on file names in DOS/8 was there borken... Open, Rename, Lock, .... you name it. I cleaned this up for V46, so it now works quite fine on my HD since probably a year or so. [...] DOS/8 is most likely not going to become official [...] because we have another alternative that is more flexible."
    http://amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=833258


    Edit: added one more

    [ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 20.11.2017 - 16:30 ]
  • »16.11.17 - 11:54
    Profile
  • Butterfly
    Butterfly
    Spectre660
    Posts: 96 from 2015/6/30
    Confirmation that the X5000 can work with dual video cards with certain configurations.
    The second card in the pciex1 slot is not functional under AmigaOS 4.1 but is the primary card under Linux .

    http://forum.hyperion-entertainment.biz/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=3917


    Quote:

    Andreas_Wolf wrote:
    > There will be more fun when we have an overlap in 2D and 3D support
    > for the same cards by the the two Oses .

    Absolutely.
  • »13.12.17 - 13:48
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    amigadave
    Posts: 2476 from 2006/3/21
    From: Lake Shastina,...
    Quote:

    Spectre660 wrote:
    The SFS file systems are not included with AmigaOS 4.1FE for X5000 .
    FFS and the new NGFS are.

    The SFS filesystems are now part of the A-Eon Enhancer software package so now a separate third party
    installation .



    If the author(s) of SFS for AmigaOS4.x are not listening to the general Amiga community, and working toward making their work on SFS for AmigaOS4.x backward compatible with all previous SFS versions, I suggest that everyone contact both the author/programmer, AND Trevor @ A-Eon, AND Matthew @ AmigaKit, to ask them to solve any existing incompatibilities, and maintain full compatibility of all future versions of SFS.

    I'm guessing that the original version of SFS is no longer supported, which is why someone else started a parallel effort, which is apparently only available for AmigaOS4.x.

    The author/programmer might not care about working to fix compatibility problems, but as much as A-Eon/AmigaKit tout the many different flavors of Linux they subsidize support for their hardware, surely they must care about this issue. If enough users contact all three entities, I have to believe that the plea for compatibility will be listened to by one or more of them, and chances to get it fixed will be improved.

    I'm sure there are many X1000, X5000, SAM460 owners, and soon A1222/Tabor owners, who would prefer all versions of SFS to be backward compatible.

    Edit: "parallel effort" is not quite the correct term, if the original SFS is no longer supported, but I think you understand what I mean.

    [ Edited by amigadave 13.12.2017 - 15:31 ]
    MorphOS - The best Next Gen Amiga choice.
  • »13.12.17 - 23:28
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9433 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > a parallel effort, which is apparently only available for AmigaOS4.x

    It‘s also available for AmigaOS 3.x.
  • »14.12.17 - 19:02
    Profile
  • Acolyte of the Butterfly
    Acolyte of the Butterfly
    vulture
    Posts: 134 from 2008/2/4
    From: Greece
    Personally, I've never had a single problem sharing files between morphos and os4 via SFS and even SFS2 (68k build). I'm talking about large partitions (>500gb) and numerous large transfers involving thousands of tiny files and that's going on for years now on my Peg2. Having said that, I always keep backups, but that's a good practice by itself. On topic, on both my mac and Peg2, the common, "transfer" partition is NTFS. Debian, OSX, OS4, MorphOS - all can read/write on it just fine and in the unlikely chance that something's important on it and gets trashed, I can always mount the disk on a pc and chkdsk it or run a recovery tool.
  • »15.12.17 - 09:23
    Profile