Pfs

21 February 2003, 01:50

Quick question: What's the latest version of PFS and what difference does it have compared to version 18.5.

Severin · 21 February 2003, 15:00

Quick answer: forget it, use SFS(SmartFileSystem), it's free and more stable (I've tried both)...

21 February 2003, 19:08

I have tried both and I frequently lost partitions with SFS but this was in 3.1 and a 20gb hd. I'm now using 3.9 yet I will boot into 3.1

22 February 2003, 02:21

I've formatted my drive and will use either PFS or SFS. PFS documentation says it IS faster and more reliable than SFS. Are you absolutely sure I should try SFS again? Can anyone else comment on this?

Echo · 22 February 2003, 18:13

Hmm, I hope you're wrong Burseg - currently reformatting my Workbench partition to SFS, because I'm sick of FFS creating checksum errors due to crashes during drive writing.

Going well so far, have the SFS filesystem written to my RDB, and have successfully created a test partition.

I purposely reset the machine while copying a file, and it didn't even have to check the disk over on reboot. All existing files were intact, only the one being copied at the time of reboot was missing.

The filename/folder length limit is incorrect though, I still have a 30 limit when the guide claims 100 characters are supported.

Workbench is now installed on SFS, booted fine. Damn, I'd forgotten how good Amiga was with its operating systems. If I'd cloned Windows to a different drive, and back again - all hell would have broken loose

22 February 2003, 18:55

I am currently using SFS on an A1200 (KS/WB 3.0) and have been doing it for a couple of months. I have had no problem at all, and I recommend all who had not tried to do it, the difference in speed is immediately noticeable!

22 February 2003, 19:28

I'm going to use a 20GB HD therefore the filesystem has to handle a 18.5GB partition properly even under OS3.1

PFS did handle it properly but I never had more than 4GB data on a partition. FFS is not an option, SFS and PFS are clearly better than it but which one is better than the other?

Echo · 24 February 2003, 09:27

One thing that is now happening a lot, is crashing mid boot (flashing LED, software failure).

Now I don't know if this is attributed to something else, because both my IDE controller and PSU have been playing up of late. But I can't recall experiencing this exact issue when on FFS.

Come to think of it, I'll note down the code and stick it in TheGuru. Might help.

21 February 2003, 01:50	#1
oldpx Posts: n/a	Pfs Quick question: What's the latest version of PFS and what difference does it have compared to version 18.5.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PFS on CF card?	BuckoA51	support.Hardware	39	30 June 2011 19:42
PFS wanted.	Thorham	request.Apps	57	16 April 2010 12:17
PFS 5.3 or PFS 5.1 CD with valid Key ??	ruliovega	request.Apps	1	30 December 2005 23:54
HELP - PFS gone!!!	alewis	support.Hardware	8	26 February 2005 15:10
Pfs 2	manicx	support.Apps	2	25 August 2003 08:57

21 February 2003, 15:00	#2
Severin Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gloucester / UK Posts: 700	Quick answer: forget it, use SFS(SmartFileSystem), it's free and more stable (I've tried both)...

21 February 2003, 19:08	#3
oldpx Posts: n/a	I have tried both and I frequently lost partitions with SFS but this was in 3.1 and a 20gb hd. I'm now using 3.9 yet I will boot into 3.1

22 February 2003, 02:21	#4
oldpx Posts: n/a	I've formatted my drive and will use either PFS or SFS. PFS documentation says it IS faster and more reliable than SFS. Are you absolutely sure I should try SFS again? Can anyone else comment on this?

22 February 2003, 18:13	#5
Echo Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: South-West Wales Posts: 382	Hmm, I hope you're wrong Burseg - currently reformatting my Workbench partition to SFS, because I'm sick of FFS creating checksum errors due to crashes during drive writing. Going well so far, have the SFS filesystem written to my RDB, and have successfully created a test partition. I purposely reset the machine while copying a file, and it didn't even have to check the disk over on reboot. All existing files were intact, only the one being copied at the time of reboot was missing. The filename/folder length limit is incorrect though, I still have a 30 limit when the guide claims 100 characters are supported. Workbench is now installed on SFS, booted fine. Damn, I'd forgotten how good Amiga was with its operating systems. If I'd cloned Windows to a different drive, and back again - all hell would have broken loose

22 February 2003, 18:55	#6
front243 Posts: n/a	I am currently using SFS on an A1200 (KS/WB 3.0) and have been doing it for a couple of months. I have had no problem at all, and I recommend all who had not tried to do it, the difference in speed is immediately noticeable!

22 February 2003, 19:28	#7
oldpx Posts: n/a	I'm going to use a 20GB HD therefore the filesystem has to handle a 18.5GB partition properly even under OS3.1 PFS did handle it properly but I never had more than 4GB data on a partition. FFS is not an option, SFS and PFS are clearly better than it but which one is better than the other?

24 February 2003, 09:27	#8
Echo Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: South-West Wales Posts: 382	One thing that is now happening a lot, is crashing mid boot (flashing LED, software failure). Now I don't know if this is attributed to something else, because both my IDE controller and PSU have been playing up of late. But I can't recall experiencing this exact issue when on FFS. Come to think of it, I'll note down the code and stick it in TheGuru. Might help.

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