| From: | xbj@lvdi.net |
| Date: | 11 Aug 2000 at 21:08:54 |
| Subject: | Re: SFS (PFS?) |
I was under the impression that 3.5 doesn't
support or work well with PFS...
Les
On 11-Aug-00, Xavier Messersmith wrote:
>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. :-)
>--
> __ /\ /\__ /\ : xav2@xav.to
> __ //// /\ /\/\ / / _\ / /\ | http://www.xav.to
> \\\/// __ \/ \/ / \/ __ \ | A-2000 39M 030/882/50
> \\/ \/ \/\/\/\/\/ \__/\/ \/ : IT ALL FREEZES!!!
>