| From: | Xavier Messersmith |
| Date: | 11 Aug 2000 at 20:45:22 |
| Subject: | Re: SFS (PFS?) |
On 11-Aug-00, Duane A. Miller wrote:
> I downloaded the SFS file from Aminet, and am thinking about using it. I
> talked to someone who thought it was good, but didn't use it. I would like
> to talk to someone who is using it, with pro's and con's for OS3.5. Thanks
I'm not using SFS, but I use a similar filesystem called PFS. I think it
crushes FFS as if it were the Commodore 64 disk filing system (which is
actually superior to FFS in a way or two).
Directories load up fast, change fast, files read write and delete fast. You
can turn the system off right in the middle of 20 different file operations
and the drive will not need or desire revalidation (the changes you were
affecting would be lost, which would actually be convenient if you were
deleting something(s) you shouldn't), it stores more data (less filesystem
overhead), it makes Zip disks more tolerable to use, it has rollover files and
softlinks.
If SFS offers half that much and you don't want to blow actual money on a
decent filesystem, I'd check SFS out.
The Fast File System is junk. :-)