Yet Another HDD thread

[mechy]

It's quite simple: because people that are not 100% comfortable with what they're doing, tend to go for the safest route. And since Workbench shipped with FFS, that's for many people an indication.
 
 For the machines I'm working on now, I dont care much about fast booting, since they are being build as whdload machines. My main machine has indeed a 3.1 FFS boot partition, but that is really only asking me whether to boot 3.9 or 4.1. After that it is SFS all the way. I've had some bad experiences with PFS3 in the past, so I tend not to go that route.
 
 Anyway, despite your disapproval of FFS, I'm glad I can get started Thanks.

If anything FFS is not safe. It suffers from auto validation and is horribly slow.FFS is easier to corrupt in my experience than sfs.
keep the boot partition under 2Gb and make it SFS, its completely reliable and compatible. Also, sfs2.79 is the latest,and sfs2.77 archive has a bunch of useful tools. not sure why you are using 1.84, although it will work ok.

[mechy]

Recently I reformated both of my A1200 Computers from SFS to FFS.

Yes SFS is faster, more reliable, but if something goes wrong you can't do anything. FFS is always fixable, never let you down.

There is sfssalv for recovery. why would you change to sfs if you claim it is more reliable? as long as you stick with sfs/0 its recoverable,sfs/2 is not.
you can use 1.279 found here(look at 1.277 archive for tools).

I was going to give a link to the 2 archives but it seems http://strohmayer.org/ is not around anymore?

EDIT: seems you can get to them here: strohmayer.org/sfs/files/SFS_1.279_68k.lha
and strohmayer.org/sfs/files/SFS_1.277_68k.lha