PFS3aio vs SFS/02

[White]

Hello Toni, I tried to use pfs3aio filesystem with OS4.1, installation and successful, I wanted to ask, but its speed and lower than sfs / 02 or something wrong.
I always read that psf was much faster than sfs
thanks to a possible reply

[White]

I leave this screen, I also tried other options but the speed is the same

[Toni Wilen]

Simply because SFS is PPC native but PFS3 is m68k-only? (becomes "double" emulated)

[White]

Toni thanks for the answer, I think it takes a more powerful PC for 4.1, I'm trying in every way :-)

[Hedeon]

Does SFS support other sizes than 512 bytes? I used to see a speed-up on PFS3 when I upped the block size to 32k on my classic Amiga.

Also SFS is unbearably slow in deleting on my MOS mac-mini. I finally bit the bullet and replaced it for PFS3. It is sooo much faster now in compiling stuff where tmp dirs/files are created and deleted.

[daxb]

Originally Posted by Hedeon

Does SFS support other sizes than 512 bytes? I used to see a speed-up on PFS3 when I upped the block size to 32k on my classic Amiga.

Must be a bug or you have wrong memories. PFS3 supports 512 and 1024. Have a look in the manual.

If you want fast deleting you have to format the partition without ".recycled" or ".deldir" directory. Add a lot of buffers is also a good idea.

[Hedeon]

Originally Posted by daxb

Must be a bug or you have wrong memories. PFS3 supports 512 and 1024. Have a look in the manual.

If you want fast deleting you have to format the partition without ".recycled" or ".deldir" directory. Add a lot of buffers is also a good idea.

Ah, didn't know about formatting without .recycled. I have 180 buffers with SFS.

Regarding blocksize..what happens if you put anything above 1024 in there? Because my 15+ year old PFS(3) partitions didn't get the message that 8k, 16k, 32k (which I have some set at) are not supported. Or are those settings dummies and behind the scenes it is actually 512 bytes whatever the setting?

[Hedeon]

Did I quick test and copied a 1 byte-sized file to a partition which had 8192 as block size setting and it actually took up 512 bytes.....LOL didn't know :-)

[daxb]

The filesystem (SFS and PFS3) limit the max block size internal. So it doesn't make sense to set higher values then 1024. FFS is different in this case. It will take what you have set (I don't know the max value).

[malko]

Having a look at the picture you have provided, it seems that you have used the Normal DOSType instead of the DirectSCSI one for your 20GB disk.
Maybe it's correct, just double check with these extract from the PFS3_53 documentation (Aminet) :

How do I partition a big disk (>4GB) ?
There are a number of ussues to consider.
Firstly you need to decide which version of PFS-2 you are going to use. The standard version supports TD64. If you know that your controller card supports this new standard then you can keep using the standard version of PFS-2 if not you will have to change over to the direct SCSI version. This will involve replacing/upgrading all partitions to use L:PFS2DS instead of L:PFS2. When you have done this - reboot so that the direct SCSI version is active.
[...]

What DOSType value shoud I use with PFS-2 ?
It is suggested that you use the following DOSType values for your PFS2 partitions :-
0x50465301 Normal version
0x50445300 Direct SCSI version
[...]

Buffers are set to the maximum value, depending on your computer use, seems ok :

How many buffers should I assign to each PFS-2 partition ?
The HDToolBox default of 30 buffers, actually 70, will result in poor performance. The minimum should be 100. The following values are recommended :-
100 - Minimum
150 - Normal partitions
250 - Large directories (>2000 files)
MAX - Very large directories (Web cache disks)
Increase these values if the partition is large.
Remember that each buffer is 1024 bytes and NOT 512 as is true for FFS.
[...]
PFS-2 4.1 (17.3) sanity checks the number of buffers ensuring that the value is between 70 and 600.

Regarding the Mask value, you are using a value I have never seen used before.

What value should DMAMask be ?
Read the instructions that came with your computer or disk controller. Can it access all memory on your machine ?
If this doesn't help look at your memory map with ShowConfig. Use the maximum memory address as a starting point and adapt it as follows :-
1. The DMAMask should start with 1, 3, 7 or F. If not substitute the higher value in the list.
2.Substitute all other digits with F.
3.Change the last F to a C.
4.Use this value.
Please look at the above paragraph. If you use MapROM you should check your value as the address quoted by ShowConfig contains a 7 which should be changed.
The following table gives some examples :-
Address | DMAMask
------------+------------
0x001FFFFF | 0x001FFFFC
0x005FFFFF | 0x007FFFFC
0x07FCFFFF | 0x07FFFFFC
0x07FFFFFF | 0x07FFFFFC
If you add memory to you machine you should review you DMAMask settings BEFORE you install the memory ! Another, poorer, option is to set the DMAMask to 0xFFFFFFFC from the word go. This is option is NOT available if your disk controller needs a specific type of memory. See above.

And for MaxTransfer :

What value should MaxTransfer be ?
To get your system up and running as quickly as possible set you MaxTransfer value using the following instructions :-
IDE Drives - Try 0x1FE00. If files greater than 64K get corrupted then reduce it to 0xFE00.
SCSI Drives - Use 0xFFFE00.
It must also be divisible by the sector size (512) due to a bug in the WorkBench format code.
Please test your set up by copying large files and testing that they were copied correctly. A large LHA file is a good test. You can test the archive after the copy to chaeck that all went well. I have heard of a SCSI disk on an A2091 card that would only work with small values. If in doubt use 0xFE00.
I will not give "optimal" values here. These values will get you going. If you want every once of speed you can increase the value until you get errors and the drop to the previous value. Use powers of 2 less the size of a block (512). Any speed increase will be VERY small and possibly not worth the risk.

Hope this helps increasing the speed

[Toni Wilen]

Those descriptions (especially mask) are mostly obsolete. (Unless you have some old weird hardware like A2090..)