10 March 2008, 18:44 | #1 |
Amibay Senior Staff
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 |
10 March 2008, 19:39 | #2 |
-
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Helsinki / Finland
Age: 43
Posts: 9,861
|
As long as the 8GB partition uses a recent filesystem (SFS?), then you're set.
|
10 March 2008, 19:48 | #3 |
Amibay Senior Staff
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cardiff / Wales
Posts: 1,302
|
|
10 March 2008, 21:43 | #4 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 6,985
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
11 March 2008, 06:28 | #5 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 3,772
|
Just use SFS and be done with it. FFS sucks. It was alright 15 years ago on small drives, but not now.
|
11 March 2008, 06:50 | #6 |
CaptainM68K-SPS France
|
SFS can support HUGE partitions.
|
11 March 2008, 10:12 | #7 |
Amibay Senior Staff
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 |
11 March 2008, 10:20 | #8 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 3,772
|
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. |
11 March 2008, 12:14 | #9 |
Retro maniac
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Finland
Age: 49
Posts: 1,219
|
Well, how about PFS, then? would it be the ultimate best filing system for large partitions ..?!
|
11 March 2008, 12:25 | #10 |
-
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Helsinki / Finland
Age: 43
Posts: 9,861
|
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. :-) |
11 March 2008, 12:39 | #11 | |
Thalion Webshrine
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 14,337
|
Quote:
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 |
|
11 March 2008, 13:18 | #12 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 3,772
|
Quote:
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. |
|
11 March 2008, 19:25 | #13 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 6,985
|
Quote:
I do not have such a big hdd in any Amiga, so I cannot test it myself. |
|
11 March 2008, 22:57 | #14 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Age: 51
Posts: 648
|
Quote:
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 |
|
12 March 2008, 01:08 | #15 | |
Thalion Webshrine
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 14,337
|
Quote:
I doubt the source code to last scsi.device was ever released? Or it's author made known? |
|
12 March 2008, 09:09 | #16 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 6,985
|
Quote:
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:
|
||
12 March 2008, 13:48 | #17 |
Amibay Senior Staff
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 |
13 March 2008, 06:08 | #18 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 3,772
|
Enjoy your slow disk accesses TheCorfiot You will regret using FFS.
|
01 April 2009, 10:23 | #19 |
In deep Trouble
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, Made in Norway
Age: 51
Posts: 841
|
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 10:25. Reason: Additional info |
01 April 2009, 11:50 | #20 | |
Fanatically Amiga.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 1,557
|
Quote:
|
|
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 10:42 |
Max size for 1.3 HDF? | Jherek Carnelia | support.Other | 7 | 08 May 2007 07:21 |
MAX size HD with rom 3.1 | Stormrider | support.Hardware | 1 | 04 March 2006 14:00 |
Max. size HDD on A1200? | jrom | support.Hardware | 9 | 09 July 2002 19:15 |
Avatars max size goes down to 64*64 | RCK | project.EAB | 6 | 08 January 2002 00:13 |
|
|