English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Support > support.Hardware

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 10 March 2008, 19:44   #1
TheCorfiot
Amibay Senior Staff
TheCorfiot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cardiff / Wales
Posts: 1,302
OS 3.5 Max HD Size

Guys I know Max HD sizes have been discussed before by looking through the Threads.....
Many statements quote that OS3.9 is fine asfare as the new scsi device driver..

How about OS3.5.... I have a 10GB HD and am planning to create 1 2GB Partition at the beginning of the HD and leave the rest unallocated.
Then I Want to install WB 3.5 onto that partition. Reboot into OS 3.5 and then use 3.5's HDToolbox to allocate,create and format the remaining space as a single 8GB partition...

Would this cause Data corruption issues or is OS 3.5 Able to cope...

Even under OS3.5 the Max partition size would be 8GB due to limitations explained by Thomas in the past

Thanks
TheCorfiot is offline  
Old 10 March 2008, 20:39   #2
Jope
-
Jope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Helsinki / Finland
Age: 38
Posts: 6,882
As long as the 8GB partition uses a recent filesystem (SFS?), then you're set.
Jope is online now  
Old 10 March 2008, 20:48   #3
TheCorfiot
Amibay Senior Staff
TheCorfiot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cardiff / Wales
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jope View Post
As long as the 8GB partition uses a recent filesystem (SFS?), then you're set.
So the File system built into OS3.5 will not cope any better than OS3.1?
TheCorfiot is offline  
Old 10 March 2008, 22:43   #4
thomas
Registered User
thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCorfiot View Post
Many statements quote that OS3.9 is fine asfare as the new scsi device driver..

How about OS3.5....
OS 3.5 has the same drivers as 3.9. What is true for OS 3.9 works with 3.5, too.

Quote:
Even under OS3.5 the Max partition size would be 8GB due to limitations explained by Thomas in the past
I must admit that this is wrong. As I found out recently, there is no partition size limit for FFS V45 (except the 2 TB limit which exists for every file system).

However, FFS becomes rather slow on big partitions. You should increase the file system block size to reduce overhead. For an 8 GB partition the new default of 1024 bytes should be ok.
thomas is offline  
Old 11 March 2008, 07:28   #5
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,618
Just use SFS and be done with it. FFS sucks. It was alright 15 years ago on small drives, but not now.
Hewitson is offline  
Old 11 March 2008, 07:50   #6
dlfrsilver
CaptainM68K-SPS France
dlfrsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melun nearby Paris/France
Age: 41
Posts: 7,824
Send a message via MSN to dlfrsilver
SFS can support HUGE partitions.
dlfrsilver is offline  
Old 11 March 2008, 11:12   #7
TheCorfiot
Amibay Senior Staff
TheCorfiot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cardiff / Wales
Posts: 1,302
[quote=thomas;401003]OS 3.5 has the same drivers as 3.9. What is true for OS 3.9 works with 3.5, too.


Cheers Thomas Thats what I was looking for, So I will go for smaller multiple partitions rather than 1 large...

I've used SFS with 3.1 and have no probs with it.. I just feel if I'm going to go the 3.5 then 3.9 route. to keep it as original and least complex as possible.

Thank you all
TheCorfiot is offline  
Old 11 March 2008, 11:20   #8
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,618
Well using SFS is no more complex than FFS. As for keeping it original, whats the point if its going to give you unnecessarily poor disk performance?

Go with FFS and you'll regret it before long. Guaranteed.
Hewitson is offline  
Old 11 March 2008, 13:14   #9
macce2
Retro maniac

macce2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Finland
Age: 43
Posts: 856
Well, how about PFS, then? would it be the ultimate best filing system for large partitions ..?!
macce2 is offline  
Old 11 March 2008, 13:25   #10
Jope
-
Jope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Helsinki / Finland
Age: 38
Posts: 6,882
PFS3 is about as ultimate as SFS.

I have happened to use PFS3 for almost a decade now, never had any reason to try SFS. :-)
Jope is online now  
Old 11 March 2008, 13:39   #11
alexh
Thalion Webshrine
alexh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 12,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas View Post
there is no partition size limit for FFS V45 (except the 2 TB limit which exists for every file system)
Can you confirm there is a 128GiB limit on the size of disks (and thus partitions) you can use on the internal IDE interface?

I was under the impression all drivers for the internal IDE use 28-bit LBA PIO commands rather than 48-bit LBA PIO EXT commands and so are limited to 128GiB? (You can of course use drives bigger than this but only 128GiB is used)

The Elbox EIDE99 interface (which I think plugs into the internal IDE interface) appears to have a replacement driver for scsi.device with support for 48-bit LBA.

http://buy.elbox.com/cgibin/shop?inf...4&sid=606157ff
alexh is offline  
Old 11 March 2008, 14:18   #12
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by macce2 View Post
Well, how about PFS, then? would it be the ultimate best filing system for large partitions ..?!
In my opinion SFS is a much better choice as its still supported and updated, plus its free.

However in terms of functionality they are both about as good as eachother. PFS3 does have one major advantage though, which is that it works on 68000/010 CPU's.
Hewitson is offline  
Old 11 March 2008, 20:25   #13
thomas
Registered User
thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexh View Post
Can you confirm there is a 128GiB limit on the size of disks (and thus partitions) you can use on the internal IDE interface?
All information I have is second-hand. Elbox advertise their LBA48 driver to be the first and definitely came later than OS 3.9. Someone has found a note about LBA48 in the change log of scsi.device but other people state that it doesn't work.

I do not have such a big hdd in any Amiga, so I cannot test it myself.
thomas is offline  
Old 11 March 2008, 23:57   #14
laser
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Age: 45
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jope View Post
PFS3 is about as ultimate as SFS.

I have happened to use PFS3 for almost a decade now, never had any reason to try SFS. :-)
the only reason to try SFS is that you got more disk-space
PFS use aprox 10% of each the partition for cache and speed......for ex if you format a PFS'partition of 100 mb...you get only 90 mb free

otherwise PFS is lot faster on a real amiga than SFS....but not on winuae....so I think the best filesystem for a real amiga is PFS but for winuae the best is SFS


bye
laser is offline  
Old 12 March 2008, 02:08   #15
alexh
Thalion Webshrine
alexh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 12,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas View Post
Elbox advertise their LBA48 driver to be the first and definitely came later than OS 3.9. Someone has found a note about LBA48 in the change log of scsi.device but other people state that it doesn't work.
You would think it would take little work to hack the EIDE99 adapter's driver to work without the hardware.

I doubt the source code to last scsi.device was ever released? Or it's author made known?
alexh is offline  
Old 12 March 2008, 10:09   #16
thomas
Registered User
thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,717
Quote:
the only reason to try SFS is that you got more disk-space
PFS use aprox 10% of each the partition for cache and speed......for ex if you format a PFS'partition of 100 mb...you get only 90 mb free
In the end you don't loose much anything. PFS reserves up to 30% of the partition for directory information and reports only the space which can really be used for data as free. SFS and FFS report the real free space but use it for directories, too.

So if you have 1000 files of 500 Bytes each, on PFS they will use 512000 Bytes of the free space and on SFS / FFS they will probably need 1024000 or more bytes to be stored.

When the disk is filled up, the number of files will probably be equal. Except if you only store big files, then PFS wastes its directory reservation.

Quote:
You would think it would take little work to hack the EIDE99 adapter's driver to work without the hardware.
It depends on what the hardware does and if the driver accesses the hardware. There is a program on my homepage which can fake an existing hardware. But if the driver accesses it, it will crash.
thomas is offline  
Old 12 March 2008, 14:48   #17
TheCorfiot
Amibay Senior Staff
TheCorfiot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cardiff / Wales
Posts: 1,302
Just to say..

I followed my original plan but did 2G + 2G +6G
With OS3.5 FFS and it all works fine....
Thomas
TheCorfiot is offline  
Old 13 March 2008, 07:08   #18
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,618
Enjoy your slow disk accesses TheCorfiot You will regret using FFS.
Hewitson is offline  
Old 01 April 2009, 11:23   #19
Doc Mindie
In deep Trouble
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, Made in Norway
Age: 46
Posts: 829
First up, REALLY sorry for the rezz of this over a year old thread.

Second:

If I put one of my 80GB HD's on the internal IDE (A1200) and install SFS..... would that be slightly adequate? I've got a 2.5" 4GB drive as my "sys:" (+ a couple other partitions) so I half-expect to be still be able to boot from there before kicking up SFS on the 80GB.... my only resevation is that I don't want to trash the Amiga and it's partitions.

:EDIT: I forgot to mention I already a IDE adapter connected. one of those new nice ones, with the "correct" IDE driver I should be able to have 4 HD's/CD-ROM combinations

Last edited by Doc Mindie; 01 April 2009 at 11:25. Reason: Additional info
Doc Mindie is offline  
Old 01 April 2009, 12:50   #20
whiteb
Fanatically Amiga.

whiteb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 1,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mindie View Post
First up, REALLY sorry for the rezz of this over a year old thread.

Second:

If I put one of my 80GB HD's on the internal IDE (A1200) and install SFS..... would that be slightly adequate? I've got a 2.5" 4GB drive as my "sys:" (+ a couple other partitions) so I half-expect to be still be able to boot from there before kicking up SFS on the 80GB.... my only resevation is that I don't want to trash the Amiga and it's partitions.

:EDIT: I forgot to mention I already a IDE adapter connected. one of those new nice ones, with the "correct" IDE driver I should be able to have 4 HD's/CD-ROM combinations
One of those "Buffered" nice new ones, then yes.
whiteb is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Max HD size usable with SurfSquirrel? Doc Mindie support.Hardware 12 12 April 2013 11:42
Max size for 1.3 HDF? Jherek Carnelia support.Other 7 08 May 2007 08:21
MAX size HD with rom 3.1 Stormrider support.Hardware 1 04 March 2006 15:00
Max. size HDD on A1200? jrom support.Hardware 9 09 July 2002 20:15
Avatars max size goes down to 64*64 RCK project.EAB 6 08 January 2002 01:13

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:49.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.09165 seconds with 13 queries