SFS cant find key errors?

[wawrzon]

from my experience sfs will always trash the partition its installed on sooner or later, starting with errors. there is no new enough version to be secure. i am currently using sfs on my aros68k partition, but only because i wanted to test it too. well, i have a lot of data traffic on it, updating the whole system virtually every other day to the latest nightly, it is already giving me customary errors almost from the start. but since this is a test partition anyway, im not that concerned, will sure reformat to pfs3 or something as soon as im in mood to copy the data there and back.

[wawrzon]

did you rewrite data to the cards a lot? seems power usage triggers that behavior.´on the other hand ive been suggested that the certain combination of os elements is responsible for sfs reliability problems. funny enough none wanted to tell me anything specific, which i considered a little a-social. nevertheless its my experience, others may differ.

[wawrzon]

thats too early to tell. the problem occurs usually for me when you extensively delete and write or replace data on your hd. perhaps its a fragmentation problem. just copying few gig data to it over few days should be almost safe.

actually i consider now to leave sfs on my aros68k partition to observe what happens to it. it gives me errors now and then, but effectively it doesnt seems to corrupt further. perhaps because i overwrite corrupted files with every new nightly.. to be honest im a little too rude with that drive, it isnt a very reliable reference.

[wawrzon]

@itix: im not sure if this is the same as the problems i have experienced, have you ever used strohmayers versions?

[wawrzon]

@itix
well then, i guess you have missed some fun. just look over at aw.net, currently two guys independently have lost theis sfs partitions under os4 yesterday. i dont mention the third who cant see his hd anymore, because its likely a different issue. threads about sfs crashes appear quite on regular basis while i didnt observe similar about the other file systems. in comparison i would say, except for annoying validation orgies, ffs is quite dependable. at least i cant recall any issues.

[wawrzon]

@itix, you mean ffs? well right, it isnt fast of course, ive never meant that. but its reliable even though revalidation sounds scary and keeps the machine from booting, which might lead to premature conclusion that the drive is broken. first time it happened to me i restarted the machine multiple times while the process because i couldnt understand whats going on. but it easily survives that.

i can also remember thomas richter told us on natami forum that ffs was actually smarter than sfs. dont remember why though, something like multithreaded or the like.