Which is better SFS or PFS

source · 25 July 2010, 19:19

I am setting up my A2000 with a 160 gig ide drive. only partitioned to 120 gig due to limitations on the Buddha IDE controler. But with the large partitions I don't want to use FFS, but I am not sure on which filing system is the best to use. where can you get PFS. and SFS is the latest version 1.279 released in 2007?
Thanks

Zetr0 · 25 July 2010, 19:45

hmmm

well in simple terms,

SFS:
1. Supports large disks upto 128GB I believe
2. Requires an 020+ or faster CPU
3. FREE

PFS3
1. Compatible with all 68k CPU's (with 020/030/040 and 060 optimizations)
2. Partitions upto 104GB!!
3. Disks upto 2TB!
4. 5x times improvment over FFS
5. Still Commercial (Free version comming Aminet..... maybe..... soon.....)

thomas · 25 July 2010, 21:55

Both SFS and PFS support disks as large as supported by the HDD driver.

SFS has a partition size limit of 128 GB.

matthey · 25 July 2010, 22:27

PFS is way better IMHO. I tried SFS with my CSMK3. SFS seemed fast but also ate a lot of CPU time compared to FFS. Also, deleting files was very slow. My Amiga would crash on cold boots (not warm boots) when I upgraded to a Maxtor 16GB 15k HD. I thought this was due to the controller or driver being older. I had a SFS HD partition that became corrupted recently. I believe the partition was being written at the time of the crash. Most of the time this is not a problem but this time is was. None of the contents showed up in a directory list. I used SFSsalv and I was able to recover all the data on the partition despite some serious bugs in SFSsalv. I decided to try PFS. The cold reboot crash is gone, delete operations are about 10x faster (important for a web browser cache which crawled), and most other operations are 1x-2x faster. It seems like there is more cpu time free too. I haven't had any problems with PFS but I haven't been using it for very long either. SFS has some serious bugs. I would go back to FFS before I would go back to SFS.

PFS>FFS>SFS

Edit: I was using the latest 68k version of SFS.

daxb · 25 July 2010, 23:44

I used PFS3 and now SFS and I would say they are generally similar. If you ask use about what is better you get answers like PFS is the best or SFS ist the best because ... You should try both then you know what works better for you.

source · 26 July 2010, 00:55

Can SFS be used as the boot partition? Should the boot partition remain FFS and the rest of the partitions be SFS? As for PFS vs SFS it sounds that it would likely be a wash as to which one is better?

NovaCoder · 26 July 2010, 01:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by source

Can SFS be used as the boot partition?

Yes.

I've been using SFS (latest version) for a few months now without any issues.

TCD · 26 July 2010, 01:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by source

As for PFS vs SFS it sounds that it would likely be a wash as to which one is better?

In terms of 'more advanced' : PFS. In terms of 'available for free' : SFS. It's all relative you see

Amiga1992 · 26 July 2010, 01:12

Whatever happened to that coverdisk edition?
If this is going to be released for free anyway, I wouldn't ind anyone givig me a reg'd copy :P

alexh · 26 July 2010, 08:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCyberDruid

In terms of 'more advanced' : PFS. In terms of 'available for free' : SFS

PFS "more advanced"? PFS will soon be free too.

PFS has the advantage of running on 68000. Reportedly has a better recovery tool but I've never needed to recover SFS (yet).

SFS has advantage of being still developed (albeit by Strohmeyer).

StingRay · 26 July 2010, 09:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCyberDruid

In terms of 'more advanced' : PFS. In terms of 'available for free' : SFS. It's all relative you see

Ever used any of these file systems? Why is PFS "more advanced"? It's not that SFS is a basic file system either.

Anyway, I prefer SFS since it always worked reliably for me, contrary to PFS.

matthey · 26 July 2010, 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by StingRay

Anyway, I prefer SFS since it always worked reliably for me, contrary to PFS.

What problems did you have with PFS? What was your hardware setup?

TCD · 26 July 2010, 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by StingRay

Ever used any of these file systems? Why is PFS "more advanced"?

Yes, both. Used as in tried them with WinUAE. PFS has some additonal features (namely the extra long filenames and 68000 support). I put both 'statements' in quotes anyway. Was merely hinting at that source should say what he means with 'better' : Faster, less CPU usage etc.

StingRay · 26 July 2010, 10:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCyberDruid

Yes, both. Used as in tried them with WinUAE.

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCyberDruid

PFS has some additonal features (namely the extra long filenames and 68000 support).

SFS supports long file names (up to 100 chars) too, just like PFS. Looks like you didn't really "use" SFS.

Bamiga2002 · 26 July 2010, 11:22

PFS fanboi here

Toni Wilen · 26 July 2010, 11:55

I prefer PFS only because SFS has become corrupted few times when Amiga crashes (real A1200, years ago) and only way to fix the corruption was reformat (fortunately no data was lost when this happened), programs that supposed to fix it never worked. No problems with PFS3.

daxb · 26 July 2010, 12:06

As I wrote. It depands on who do you ask.

Ok, there are some differences that maybe intersting for you. Don`t care (trust) about recovery data. Make a regularly (save) backup on another drive. That isn`t expensive and in worst case your brain will be cool.

Zetr0 · 26 July 2010, 13:58

For me the only selling point for PFS is the support for the basic 68000 cpu, thus my A500+ with 2MB CHIP and 8MB FAST (via the GVP HC8+) could have a good 20GB SCSI drive without stupid ammounts of partitions! =D

I have been using SFS for a fair while and it impresses me, and yeah it does use a bit more CPU time but I ask what else is an 030, 040 or 060 suposed to do other than sit there, suck juice and look good?

I took a few days to do some serious testing with controllers and formats and here are some of my results using (RSCP) Raw System Speed Test with Smart File System (SFS)

(A4000 Cyberstorm Mk2 060@50 / Samsung SpoinPoint UDMA ATA133 8MB cache 20GB )
Native IDE - 2.7MB per second 100% CPU usage*

*Now i personally believe that the program used only has a small test write/read chunk as set I think most (if not all of it) was sitting in the HDD Cache as 2.7MB is theoretical not possible from the onboard IDE controller

to contrast this information, an A1200 with Falcon 040@25 MHz achieves only 2.1MB per second via the Native Onboard IDE (100% CPU time)

Now Back to the A4000
(CyberSCSI2 Fast SCSI2 + 18.1GB 2MB Cache 10kRPM Cheeta SCSI2*)
CyberSCSI2 *async mode* - 4.4MB per second 38% CPU usage / 62% idle*
CyberSCSI2 *sync mode* - 6.2MB per second 38% CPU usage / 62% idle*

This results I think are skewed duer to the age/use of the HardDisk, the unit comes from a second industry user background so its had a hard life - I was hoping to try the 20GB HDD that was originally used on the Native IDE but this time with a SCSI-IDE bridge alas I dont have any - anymore - and the price of them is an outrage

A little more for contrast

BlizzardPPC 330eplus + 68060@60 (Fast SCSI2) + SCSI-IDE bridge + 40pin IDE to 1.8" ZIF adapter - Hitachi 40GB (from dead IPOD)

Async mode = 4.7MB with 36% CPU usage / 64% idle*

*Now the 40GB 1.8" ZIF (IPOD) drives are very slow spinners and have little or NO cache onboard them, alas I never tried sync mode to see if it is any faster.

All the tests were conducted on SFS formatted drives under ClassicWorkbench OS3.9 with exception to the first A1200 / 040 test as that was using ClassicWorkbench Advanced (later replaced for CW39)

Now lets flip this lot on it head and see what Fast File System (FFS) can do

Using Samsung Spin Point UDMA ATA133 20GB 8MB Cache

Unit: A1200 + Falcon 040@25 - Native IDE - Speed 1.2MB per second 100% CPU time
Unit: A4000 + CybeSMk2 060 - Natvie IDE - Speed 2.1MB per second 100% CPU time

In contrast - an A500+ with SCSI controller
Unit: A500+ (2MB Chip) 8MB Fast - GVP HC8+ FastSCSI2 - SCSI-IDE Bridge - 1.67MB 12% CPU time (88% Idle)

I have a combo 040 to test the above controller with SFS.

All in all there are two lynch pins in any Amiga setup - the Device Controller (DMA or not DMA) and the Format of the unit

I can honestly Say that on the A4000 loading Quake from the SCSI Disk takes only a 3rd of the time compared to the Native IDE, which is pretty much down to the CPU having a more time to process what it fetches.

stefcep2 · 19 August 2010, 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

I prefer PFS only because SFS has become corrupted few times when Amiga crashes (real A1200, years ago) and only way to fix the corruption was reformat (fortunately no data was lost when this happened), programs that supposed to fix it never worked. No problems with PFS3.

Yes happened to my on my real A4000. Lost a heap of software.

BuZz · 19 August 2010, 17:02

Think it's swings and roundabouts, since I had problems with PFS3 and disk corruption (overwriting RDB!) and other issues. For both filesystems, I would not rely on any "recovery software" but utilise backups.

25 July 2010, 19:19	#1
source Zone Friend Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 734	Which is better SFS or PFS I am setting up my A2000 with a 160 gig ide drive. only partitioned to 120 gig due to limitations on the Buddha IDE controler. But with the large partitions I don't want to use FFS, but I am not sure on which filing system is the best to use. where can you get PFS. and SFS is the latest version 1.279 released in 2007? Thanks

25 July 2010, 22:27	#4
matthey Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Kansas Posts: 1,284	PFS is way better IMHO. I tried SFS with my CSMK3. SFS seemed fast but also ate a lot of CPU time compared to FFS. Also, deleting files was very slow. My Amiga would crash on cold boots (not warm boots) when I upgraded to a Maxtor 16GB 15k HD. I thought this was due to the controller or driver being older. I had a SFS HD partition that became corrupted recently. I believe the partition was being written at the time of the crash. Most of the time this is not a problem but this time is was. None of the contents showed up in a directory list. I used SFSsalv and I was able to recover all the data on the partition despite some serious bugs in SFSsalv. I decided to try PFS. The cold reboot crash is gone, delete operations are about 10x faster (important for a web browser cache which crawled), and most other operations are 1x-2x faster. It seems like there is more cpu time free too. I haven't had any problems with PFS but I haven't been using it for very long either. SFS has some serious bugs. I would go back to FFS before I would go back to SFS. PFS>FFS>SFS Edit: I was using the latest 68k version of SFS. Last edited by matthey; 26 July 2010 at 03:21.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Check4GB difference between SFS and PFS-020ds	Turran	support.Hardware	16	12 May 2012 10:59
Strange problem with ClassicWB 3.9 on SFS or PFS boot partition	Tarel78	project.ClassicWB	15	20 April 2012 07:56
PFS 5.3 or PFS 5.1 CD with valid Key ??	ruliovega	request.Apps	1	30 December 2005 23:54
pfs or sfs	oldpx	support.Apps	14	07 March 2003 23:33
Pfs/sfs/sms/pmt/abc/bbc/ddt/ici/b&q/bbq	Jim	support.Hardware	7	19 September 2002 18:07

25 July 2010, 19:45	#2
Zetr0 Ya' like it Retr0? Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: United Kingdom Age: 49 Posts: 9,768	hmmm well in simple terms, SFS: 1. Supports large disks upto 128GB I believe 2. Requires an 020+ or faster CPU 3. FREE PFS3 1. Compatible with all 68k CPU's (with 020/030/040 and 060 optimizations) 2. Partitions upto 104GB!! 3. Disks upto 2TB! 4. 5x times improvment over FFS 5. Still Commercial (Free version comming Aminet..... maybe..... soon.....)

25 July 2010, 21:55	#3
thomas Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 7,009	Both SFS and PFS support disks as large as supported by the HDD driver. SFS has a partition size limit of 128 GB.

25 July 2010, 23:44	#5
daxb Registered User Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 3,305	I used PFS3 and now SFS and I would say they are generally similar. If you ask use about what is better you get answers like PFS is the best or SFS ist the best because ... You should try both then you know what works better for you.

26 July 2010, 00:55	#6
source Zone Friend Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 734	Can SFS be used as the boot partition? Should the boot partition remain FFS and the rest of the partitions be SFS? As for PFS vs SFS it sounds that it would likely be a wash as to which one is better?

26 July 2010, 01:12	#9
Amiga1992 Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ? Posts: 19,646	Whatever happened to that coverdisk edition? If this is going to be released for free anyway, I wouldn't ind anyone givig me a reg'd copy :P

26 July 2010, 11:22	#15
Bamiga2002 BlizzardPPC'less Join Date: May 2004 Location: Finland Age: 46 Posts: 3,210	PFS fanboi here

26 July 2010, 11:55	#16
Toni Wilen WinUAE developer Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland Age: 49 Posts: 26,535	I prefer PFS only because SFS has become corrupted few times when Amiga crashes (real A1200, years ago) and only way to fix the corruption was reformat (fortunately no data was lost when this happened), programs that supposed to fix it never worked. No problems with PFS3.

26 July 2010, 12:06	#17
daxb Registered User Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 3,305	As I wrote. It depands on who do you ask. Ok, there are some differences that maybe intersting for you. Don`t care (trust) about recovery data. Make a regularly (save) backup on another drive. That isn`t expensive and in worst case your brain will be cool.

26 July 2010, 13:58	#18
Zetr0 Ya' like it Retr0? Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: United Kingdom Age: 49 Posts: 9,768	For me the only selling point for PFS is the support for the basic 68000 cpu, thus my A500+ with 2MB CHIP and 8MB FAST (via the GVP HC8+) could have a good 20GB SCSI drive without stupid ammounts of partitions! =D I have been using SFS for a fair while and it impresses me, and yeah it does use a bit more CPU time but I ask what else is an 030, 040 or 060 suposed to do other than sit there, suck juice and look good? I took a few days to do some serious testing with controllers and formats and here are some of my results using (RSCP) Raw System Speed Test with Smart File System (SFS) (A4000 Cyberstorm Mk2 060@50 / Samsung SpoinPoint UDMA ATA133 8MB cache 20GB ) Native IDE - 2.7MB per second 100% CPU usage* Now i personally believe that the program used only has a small test write/read chunk as set I think most (if not all of it) was sitting in the HDD Cache as 2.7MB is theoretical not possible from the onboard IDE controller to contrast this information, an A1200 with Falcon 040@25 MHz achieves only 2.1MB per second via the Native Onboard IDE (100% CPU time) Now Back to the A4000* (CyberSCSI2 Fast SCSI2 + 18.1GB 2MB Cache 10kRPM Cheeta SCSI2)* CyberSCSI2 async mode - 4.4MB per second 38% CPU usage / 62% idle* CyberSCSI2 sync mode - 6.2MB per second 38% CPU usage / 62% idle* This results I think are skewed duer to the age/use of the HardDisk, the unit comes from a second industry user background so its had a hard life - I was hoping to try the 20GB HDD that was originally used on the Native IDE but this time with a SCSI-IDE bridge alas I dont have any - anymore - and the price of them is an outrage A little more for contrast BlizzardPPC 330eplus + 68060@60 (Fast SCSI2) + SCSI-IDE bridge + 40pin IDE to 1.8" ZIF adapter - Hitachi 40GB (from dead IPOD) Async mode = 4.7MB with 36% CPU usage / 64% idle* Now the 40GB 1.8" ZIF (IPOD) drives are very slow spinners and have little or NO cache onboard them, alas I never tried sync mode to see if it is any faster. All the tests were conducted on SFS formatted drives under ClassicWorkbench OS3.9 with exception to the first A1200 / 040 test as that was using ClassicWorkbench Advanced (later replaced for CW39) Now lets flip this lot on it head and see what Fast File System (FFS)* can do Using Samsung Spin Point UDMA ATA133 20GB 8MB Cache Unit: A1200 + Falcon 040@25 - Native IDE - Speed 1.2MB per second 100% CPU time Unit: A4000 + CybeSMk2 060 - Natvie IDE - Speed 2.1MB per second 100% CPU time In contrast - an A500+ with SCSI controller Unit: A500+ (2MB Chip) 8MB Fast - GVP HC8+ FastSCSI2 - SCSI-IDE Bridge - 1.67MB 12% CPU time (88% Idle) I have a combo 040 to test the above controller with SFS. All in all there are two lynch pins in any Amiga setup - the Device Controller (DMA or not DMA) and the Format of the unit I can honestly Say that on the A4000 loading Quake from the SCSI Disk takes only a 3rd of the time compared to the Native IDE, which is pretty much down to the CPU having a more time to process what it fetches.

19 August 2010, 17:02	#20
BuZz Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Oxford / UK Age: 47 Posts: 583	Think it's swings and roundabouts, since I had problems with PFS3 and disk corruption (overwriting RDB!) and other issues. For both filesystems, I would not rely on any "recovery software" but utilise backups.

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