| From: | Bob Rickman |
| Date: | 28 May 2001 at 10:20:04 |
| Subject: | Re: PFS3 |
This is a reply to a message from Neil Bothwick.
Subject: Re: [amigactive] Re: PFS3:
Hello Neil,
On 28-May-01, you wrote:
>> You're not really losing any space, you may actually me /gaining/
>> space on the harddisk.
>
> Correct.
>
>> The reason for this size difference is that PFS allocates all the
>> filespace for filenames/dir structures when you format it, while FFS
>> saves it when writing files.
>
> It also accounts for the massive speed increase when reading
> directories. PFS has the directory table in one place, while FFS
> scatters it all over the partition.
>
>> IIRC PFS also uses less space for the file system structures, so if
>> you tried to copy 500megs of FFS files over you'd probably be left
>> with more free space at the end of it.
>
> FFS uses a complete filesystem block for the headers and directory
> information for each file. With a 1024K block size, a 1 byte file still
> uses 2K of disk space. PFS keeps this data far more efficiently, so you
> end up with more usable disk space.
So..... everything is as it should be? Thanks for that, now I can do my
other partitions & drives.
Do you suggest leaving anything as FFS I wonder? For any reason?
Regards,
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/