OS 3.5 Max HD Size

[TheCorfiot]

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

[Jope]

As long as the 8GB partition uses a recent filesystem (SFS?), then you're set.

[TheCorfiot]

Originally Posted by Jope

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?

[thomas]

Originally Posted by TheCorfiot

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.

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.

[Hewitson]

Just use SFS and be done with it. FFS sucks. It was alright 15 years ago on small drives, but not now.

[dlfrsilver]

SFS can support HUGE partitions.

[TheCorfiot]

[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

[Hewitson]

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.

[macce2]

Well, how about PFS, then? would it be the ultimate best filing system for large partitions ..?!

[Jope]

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. :-)

[alexh]

Originally Posted by thomas

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

[Hewitson]

Originally Posted by macce2

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.

[thomas]

Originally Posted by alexh

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.

[laser]

Originally Posted by Jope

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

[alexh]

Originally Posted by thomas

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?

[thomas]

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.

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.

[TheCorfiot]

Just to say..

I followed my original plan but did 2G + 2G +6G
With OS3.5 FFS and it all works fine....
Thomas

[Hewitson]

Enjoy your slow disk accesses TheCorfiot You will regret using FFS.

[Doc Mindie]

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

[whiteb]

Originally Posted by Doc Mindie

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.