Anyone working on PFS3 ??

[Franko]

Just wondering if anyone is working on PFS3 to enable big TB partitions for big fast drives etc.....
Just such a shame if it has now been released and no one is interested. Such a great FS.

If you're really looking to work with TB sized partitions the I'd recommend SmartFileSystem as there is no limitation on partition size or HD size...

I've been using it for many years now and it has proven very stable and I have never lost one bit of data with it...

SmartFileSystem Ver 1.279

[Franko]

SFS is dog slow compared to PFS3 though. Also there for sure is a limitation of 2TB, so there's no use in getting a HDD larger than that.

Slow is just your opinion Piru and of course your entitled to that...

But you are very wrong in saying that is has a 2TB limitation, I suggest you download it read the docs and better still try it for yourself and you will find you are totally wrong with your 2TB limitation claim...

Looks like you don't know everything after all...

[Franko]

Actually it isn't an opinion but fact that can be verified by anyone.


The limitation is 2TB.

Again it's just an opinion and just to prove you wrong here's my opinion "SFS is fast"...

so there you go, you did say anyone and I being anyone have just told you that it is fast and verified by me but at the end of it all no matter what you or I say it's simply an opinion...

Now where your totally wrong is in your claim that 2TB is the limit on SFS which I can tell you straight is absolutely wrong...

And as you were forever telling others like Dave Haynie to back things up they say, well now it's your turn. Back up this incorrect/false claim of a 2TB limit or stop making such false claims as you often like to tell others...

[Franko]

He said it's slow compared to PFS.
One of them is faster than the other, that is a fact. It's not an opinion if there are cold hard facts.

It may be a "Fact" to Piru and yourself but I beg to differ I say SFS is fast and again it's all down to opinions, nothing else...

Strange how he can't provide proof of his absurd 2TB limit claim (which he has posted twice now), as I await here to prove him wrong with proof that there is no such 2TB limit using SFS...

And for anyone who does not want to wait on Pirus answer (if he ever gives one) then feel free to go to the authors site and download SFS and read the docs and see for themselves that Pirus 2TB Limit claim is wrong...

SmartFileSystem Ver 1.279

[Franko]

btw: if Piru recommends something Amiga related, I'd (personally) take his word as gospel.

Then more fool you as SFS doesn't have the filesize or HD size limitations that PFS3 does...

[Franko]

SFS partitions are limited to 127GB and filesize can not be larger than 2GB. In theory you can have file size to almost 4GB but it is not guaranteed to work with all applications.

Sorry mate but your 100% wrong on both claims...

With the introduction in SFS of SF2 partitions the 127GB limitation was done away with a number of years ago along with the 4GB filesize...

With an SF2 partition there is on limit in theory as to the partition size or filesize...

Hence the reason why on my 2 500GB Amiga HDs I have 250Gb partitions crammed full of DVD Dual Layer ISO's of up 8.3GB individual file sizes and all can be read or written on the Amiga without any problems whatsoever and I've been doing this on a daily basis for a number of years now without any problems or loss of data...

I suggest to all who like to make these false claims to download SmartFileSystem themselves and read carefully the docs and better still try it out for themselves before making such incorrect statement and claims here...

[Franko]

Franko: You just love to piss off Piru don't you?

Nope... believe it or not I actually think Piru gives out some very useful and helpful advice, just when he's wrong about something he seems to lack the ability to admit it...

And in this case anyone can easily download SmartFileSystem from the link I gave and test it for themselves to see that no matter what Piru says on this subject he is just simply wrong...

[Franko]

Franko: I could never get SFS to work. I have heard it is faster and more flexable than FFS, but have never heard anyone but you claim that it was better than PFS, which I am currently using.

On that note, I can say that PFS is NO FASTER than FFS when used with a CF Card via IDE adaptor. My A600 030 still opens directories at the same slow speed at 16 Colors, though I can at least use larger partitions now, so I'm half way happy at least.

Piru: Are there any advantages to me updating my MorphOS partitions to PFS over the default file system that MorphOS uses during an install?

That's simply because fewer folk have heard of SFS let alone given the last version released (Ver 1.279) a try. I've used PFS myself but it's filesize limitation was my main reason for switching to SFS as I need to be able to read & burn full DVD ISO images (ie bigger than 4GB) on my Amiga's...

Whether I'm the only person to say it's more flexible doesn't matter to me, the point is it works and can do the stuff I require which PFS can't do...

[Franko]

Tell me, how many >2TB hard disks have you partitioned with an amiga?

None... as the biggest drives I use are 1TB...

Now you tell me after you've given SFS Ver 1.279 a try on an Amiga that it has a 2TB limitation...

[Franko]

I don't need to test it. I know it's technically impossible to partition a >2TB drive reporting 512 byte block size (that's what current drives do due to compatibility reasons). These drives will report more than 4^32-1 sectors and you cannot fit such number into 32bit data type (used by both TD_GETGEOMETRY and RDB itself).

Wrong... yet again... no one said anything about using 512 byte block sizes...

Do us both a favour go read the docs and send you theories to the author of SFS, it works (don't ask me how, ask the author) it's as plain and simple as that...

[Franko]

You cannot change the block size the drive uses internally. Logical block size used with filesystem is irrelevant here.


Any amount of reading the docs won't change the fact that it's impossible to RDB partition a >2TB drive reporting 512 byte block size.


The real author of SFS is doing some other things these days. For some reason the project was hijacked by this strohmayer guy. Regardless, both would agree with my assessment.

Piru dear chap... all I can say to you is YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG and unless you give it a try yourself then you can post all the technical mumbo jumbo you want, it still doesn't change the FACT IT WORKS...

So unless you decide to actually try it for yourself and then come back to me with proof that it doesn't work, then you can go on quoting all the figures you want till your blue in the face, at the end of the day you are quite simply wrong on this one and I will quite happily tell you so until you prove me wrong...

[Franko]

Alright Franko. We want screen shots of videos of this proof! This I got to see!

Screen shots of what video of what

PS: In case you hadn't noticed or conveniently missed it Piru is the one claiming this 2TB limit and it's up to him to prove his claim not me...

Course I have provided a link where anyone can download SFS so if your too lazy to download it, read the docs or even try for yourself then I sure as hell aint wasting my time proving something someone else said...

[Franko]

It actually is quite relevant technical information that explains in simple terms why I am right. You can of course try to deny it all you want, but it still doesn't change the facts presented.

You on the other hand seem to base your claim on the dubious remarks in the documentation: "Supports large partitions.  The limit is about 2000 GB, but it can be more depending on the blocksize." and "With this new 'SFS\2' format it's possible to create ... partitions larger than 128 GB (the limit for 'SFS\2' partitions is 1 TB * blocksize / 512)."

What the author of that comment doesn't realize is that while the FS might in theory work with larger block size, there is no way to partition >2TB HDD by using RDB. In fact there isn't even a way to query the true capacity of such drive via TD_GETGEOMETRY.

Thus the maximum is in fact limited to 2TB, regardless of the logical block size you might use.

Ah so you finally bothered to read the docs...

A minute ago you were telling me you the author would agree with your assessment, now you've read his docs you are now telling what he says is dubious... :rolleyes:

Again I say to you and this is speaking from my own experience using this filesystem, you go ahead and try it on a >2TB HD and if it doesn't work then I'll happily admit I was wrong and then give the author a roasting for being a diddy, sound fair...

[Franko]

Franko: I don't have a drive larger than 2Tb my self, hence the reason I need videos or pictures as proof. Besides, I could never get SFS to work in the first place.

Sorry, man. I have to mess with you, Piru is paying me good money for this!

And as I said the largest HD's I've got are 1TB so not much point in making a video of that (course I could doctor the pictures to turn it into a 4TB drive if that'll make everyone happy)...

Piru paying out money... aye right... and I'm the Queen of England...

[Franko]

• TD_GETGEOMETRY and RDB use 32bit unsigned value to store block numbers. The maximum block number they can represent is 2^32 -1 or 4294967295.
• 3TB HDD uses block size of 512. The capacity reported is around 3 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 / 512 blocks or 5859375000.
• The value 5859375000 is larger than 4294967295. Thus it cannot be represented with a 32bit unsigned integer data type. Ergo TD_GETMEOMETRY or RDB cannot properly report/handle such device.

Awe Gawd... more mumbo jumbo, look Piru unlike you I'm not an andriod made of old PC parts running on a flakey version of MorphOS, so you can post all the gobbledegook or Einstein's theories on how space is really a banana and you are I don't really exist, all you want... ;)

I STILL SAY YOUR WRONG... :insane: