Best File System for CF Cards on a Real Amiga

[Peter]

Another of my "Best way to do something" threads where I pick your brains if that's OK...

I have a 2GB CF Card that I am intending to put into my next A1200 which will have OS3.9 installed.

In the past I have always just gone with the built in standard Fast File System to set up my CF Cards but I know that this is not the most efficient way to set them up and there are faster systems available... so the question is..

Which File System is best...?

From what I can see there are three main choices.

1.Fast File
2.SFS
3.PFS

Which do you use and which version should I use for a 2GB card.

I don't need a bigger CF Card in this A1200 so don't need to worry about File Systems offering larger Hard Drive support here.

[fitzsteve]

@Peter

I've not tried PFS (will once its free )

But SFS is much faster than FFS on the native IDE (2.2mb/sec compared to 1.2mb sec on my A1200/s)

I've not had any problems with SFS, its running fine on all my Amiga's except my A600 as at the time of setting up it only had the 68k and SFS cannot run on <020

PFS however can run on a 68k being I guess one of its benefits

Try SFS mate, its free and under CWBOS3.9 dead easy to setup.

Steve.

[Jimbo]

When I set mine up I used the mighty Killergorilla guide which can't be much different for CF card's. Or maybe max transfer will be?

http://wiki.abime.net/amigaos_workbench/sfs

It does make a huge difference on a normal HD anyway.

[Peter]

Steve - which version of SFS do you run?

[fitzsteve]

Originally Posted by Peter

Steve - which version of SFS do you run?

The one included with CWB OS3.9 (latest version of CWB) whatever that is.

[Zetr0]

@Peter

Use this SFS 1.277 - have a read here for a ClassicWorkbench tutorial for enabling large harddisk support.

[Peter]

SFS better than PFS....?

[FOL]

Originally Posted by Zetr0

Use this SFS 1.277

I thought SFS 1.279 was latest.
I use that on my A1200 CF setup without issue.

[thomas]

Originally Posted by Peter

SFS better than PFS....?

No, but it's free.

Originally Posted by FOL

I thought SFS 1.279 was latest.

The archive on Aminet contains complete documentation and utility programs, the latest 1.279 only contains the file system. So one should download 1.277, read the docs and install the utilities and then download 1.279 and use that.

[FOL]

Originally Posted by thomas

No, but it's free.




The archive on Aminet contains complete documentation and utility programs, the latest 1.279 only contains the file system. So one should download 1.277, read the docs and install the utilities and then download 1.279 and use that.

Ah, did'nt know that.
I have always just used the filesystem not the utilities. Will check it out.

[Amiga1992]

I am also looking forward to PFS being free, but I wonder how that twat Andreas has destroyed this possibility

In the meantime, SFS has been serving me well on my A1200

[Peter]

I do have a copy of PFS2 on CD - If given a choice between that and SFS 1.279 I have no idea which would be best...

[fitzsteve]

Originally Posted by Peter

I do have a copy of PFS2 on CD - If given a choice between that and SFS 1.279 I have no idea which would be best...

Try them both mate, compare speeds in SYSInfo and see how you get on, would be nice to know for my future setups

Have fun & take pics!

[Peter]

I am tempted to try and get hold of PFS3 and then do the comparisons.

Just thought I would test the water and see if anyone had sat down and done this before (I hate re-inventing the wheel situations - I'm a lazy b*gger you know!)

Actually it might be quite fun in a strange sort of way...

[fitzsteve]

Zetr0 usually has a list of speeds where you at Mr Zee?

[Fabie]

Originally Posted by Peter

I do have a copy of PFS2 on CD - If given a choice between that and SFS 1.279 I have no idea which would be best...

PFS3 on a real Amiga is lot faster than SFS
however PFS uses the 10% of any partition for cache
so if you format a partition of 1gb with PFS3 you get a partition of 900mb....you lost the 10%

[HonestFlames]

I could certainly live with losing 10% to a cache. CF storage is really cheap.

I'm still using FFS and OS3.1 on my A1200. It does everything I need it to. Transfer speed is around 2MB/s, which is what I used to get from my 700MB HD, many years ago.

[thomas]

Originally Posted by Fabie

PFS uses the 10% of any partition for cache

That's nonsense. These 10 percent are not cache, they are the directory. While other file systems tell you 1000MB free but each file needs several 512 bytes more than its size, PFS tells you 900MB free, but only uses as much space as the file is big.

This means that PFS wastes a lot of space if you only store big files, but it is more realistic than other file systems if you store a natural mix of file sizes.

[thomas]

Originally Posted by HonestFlames

I'm still using FFS and OS3.1 on my A1200. It does everything I need it to. Transfer speed is around 2MB/s, which is what I used to get from my 700MB HD, many years ago.

Transfer speed is irrelevant, it does not depend on the file system used. Access time (seek time) is what matters. Try Quake or another game with huge data files, then you will notice the difference.

[Peter]

@ Thomas, so if you had a choice between SFS and PFS3 regardless of cost - which would you use Thomas?