PFS vs SFS

[ChrisH]

IMHO, you should stick with SFS unless you find some serious problem with it that the author cannot fix.  (With PFS you don't have that luxery - PFS is no-longer developed.)

I switched from PFS3 to SFS, and haven't looked back.  Yes, it's *slightly* slower, but it seems more stable to me & less prone to corruption (although I haven't done any scientific comparisons).

Oh, and the SFS defrag util is great.  I don't think that PFS had that feature???

[ChrisH]

BTW, your crash with PFS may be due to "wrong" Mask or MaxTransfer settings, because it is *very* sensitive to those.  (Dunno if SFS is also sensitive, because I use the same "correct" settings.)

ALSO, I recall that too few Buffers for large (GB sized) partitions could cause crashes too.  I had a rule of thumb for the number of buffers to use, if that would help?

[ChrisH]

No, the author of PFS was considering writing a defrag util for PFS (which would run in the background), but he never got around to it.  Yes, PFS *minimises* the amount of fragmentation, but that is not the same thing.

SFS tries to do exactly the same thing, but as mentioned in certain cases it doesn't do as well as PFS.  But since you can defrag SFS at any time (and very quickly & safely) this isn't a major issue.