Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!  (Read 4909 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lionstorm

Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #14 from previous page: March 17, 2003, 09:24:59 AM »
If you still continue using FFS after what has been posted, install turboval available through aminet : it will help you very much is validating related problems.
Lio
 

Offline Atheist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 820
    • Show only replies by Atheist
Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2003, 11:37:22 AM »
What if you create a RAD: and copy ALL the files  there, OS too, then re-boot, making the OS ram resident, and only access the rad: or ram disk: That's what I do. I haven't had a "disk validation error" yet. Been ok for 13 years.

Periodically copy over the cache and text/image files you want to save from the shell.

AmigaOne! SUPERIOR!!!!!!!!
\\"Which would you buy? The Crappy A1200, 15 years out of date... or the Mobile Phone that I have?\\" -- bloodline
So I guess that A500, 600, 1000, 2000, CDTV, CD32, are pure garbage then? Thanks for posting here.
 

Offline ikir

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1659
    • Show only replies by ikir
    • http://www.ikirsector.it
Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2003, 11:40:34 AM »
I don't like IB2.3 :-(
 

Offline KennyR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 8081
    • Show only replies by KennyR
    • http://wrongpla.net
Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2003, 12:43:13 PM »
PFS and SFS are not that great either. PFS doesn't have (and never will have) a PPC native version so many don't feel it's worth buying for future Amigas. SFS isn't really finished (and looks like it never will be) and still has bugs and lacks some features (like locking drives). Either of them don't screw up often, but when they do, they screw up big time. Data recovery chance is approaching zero.

FFS is the only filesystem with guaranteed 100% compatibility whether you're running Linux-APUS or other exotic stuff. It's also easy to get the data out of a broken partition.

I'll stick to FFS on my SYS: partition for now. With a system as stable as mine (no hacks), I almost never get an invalidated disk - and that's when running Samba too! I run SFS partitions too (and can't say I see much of a speed difference), but I keep a very close eye on them...

THOR's DiskSafe is also a nice tool for FFS users that stops them invalidating their HD with a badly timed reset or even from some crashes.
 

Offline Piru

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
    • Show only replies by Piru
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2003, 12:56:42 PM »
Quote
PFS doesn't have (and never will have) a PPC native version

Emulated PFS3 still beats the s**t out of any FFS. I use PFS3 for all drives on MorphOS, and have had 0 problems.

Quote
Either of them don't screw up often, but when they do, they scew up big time. Data recovery chance is approaching zero.

PFS3 comes with very good recovery program (two programs in fact) that can fix any size partition (I perioidically verify my 130 gigs of partitions, just in case). In years (PFS, AFS, PFS2, PFS3) of PFS usage I've had two occasions of filesystem corruption, and both were due to my experimentations with Read/Write cache program (external write cache program is a NONO for PFS, I quicky learnt). Even in these cases I was able to recover fully.

Quote
FFS is the only filesystem with guaranteed 100% compatibility whether you're running Linux-APUS or other exotic stuff.

Fine, here is a one good use for FFS. I still prefer VFAT though, it can be read on all m$ oses as well, if needed.

I would never ever go back to FFS.
 

Offline KennyR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 8081
    • Show only replies by KennyR
    • http://wrongpla.net
Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2003, 01:19:50 PM »
I'm not saying FFS is great by any means, just that SFS and PFS have their own flaws too. I've heard of PFS partitions becoming so badly mangled that formatting them is the only option - although, I admit, I don't use PFS so I've never seen it personally.
 

Offline lempkee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 2860
    • Show only replies by lempkee
    • http://www.amigaguru.com
Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2003, 04:45:14 PM »
I use pFS3 and SFS , but if any of theese crash then i have no way of rescuing my stuff....so thats why backups are a good thing...

i have cahce on a smaller partision...
ib and miamidx etc is on my SYS: disk.

good luck on yer prob and i can say for sure thats its not ibrowse's fault.., its the FFS system u use, anyway.... i do recomend PFS or SFS but i might add that its not great for everyone, due to you should have a backup at all times....

IF IT CRASH ...It cRASH...unlike PFS where u can rescue stuff..

 
Whats up with all the hate!
 

Offline AmiGod

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 147
    • Show only replies by AmiGod
Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2003, 05:20:05 PM »
Atheist,

Quote
What if you create a RAD: ...


I used to do that myself for AWeb, and it worked like a charm.  Then I got DSL, and I thought "what's the point in wasting HD space on a cache when I have a fast connection?"  So I've kept the cache disabled ever since.

If I really want something that's on a site, I just save the page as an IFF image.  If I want it as a PDF, I can load the IFF file in PageStream and voila.  On the Mac, I just print the page to PDF and make the necessary clean-ups later in Acrobat.

AmiGod
 

Offline MikeB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 323
    • Show only replies by MikeB
Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2003, 06:13:51 PM »
@lempkee

I agree, PFS3 is great and it is 100% compatible.
Plus it has direct scsi support.

But if it comes down to facts well:

1. 500% faster read/writes and scanning directories. The performance gain varies with depending on devices, buffers and processor but gains of upto 500% are no exception.

2.Disks are always valid, no matter what happens, its called Atomic Commit. More info in PFS3 Docs.

3. Reliability - very reliable and stable filesystem. Has built in problem detection mechanism. When PFS3 detects a problem it will do everything it can to save your data (see problem detection)

4. Parralel access without performance loss.
FFS breaks down when you try to do several things simultaneously on one volume. PFS3 does not!.

5. Full Compatibility.
PFS3 is fully compatible with FFS at filesystem level, but for a few rarely used filesystem packets. What this means is that practically all tools and applications that use the filesystem to access the disk work. All normal applications do this, including most backup tools.
Some applications, however, access the disk directly, bypassing the filesystem.  Such applications won't work if they expect a FFS disk. Examples are disk optimisers and repair tools (like Quarterback Tools and DiskSalv).
Such tools have to be specially made or adapted in order to function with PFS3. The reason those tools don't work is that PFS3 stores
information differently on the disk than FFS does. In fact, PFS3 does this in a more efficient and reliable way.
The only feature of FFS that is not supported by PFS3 are record locks. Not a single application that uses this FFS feature is known to us.

6. Easy Filerecovery - lost files can be restored from the delete directory. This includes overwritten files.

7. Long filename support - supports 107 characters

8. Automatically truncated logfiles - stopping them from growing indefinitely.

9. Large disk support - pfs3 supports disk and partitions of upto 104GB using the direct scsi and TD64 interfaces.

10. Multiuser support - a multi user system turns PFS3 into a MuFS replacement. It adds user based access rights to the files on the disk. Each file and directory can be assigned to specific users and user groups. The owner of a file can determine who may have access the file.

The ONLY issue i have had with PFS3 is if you dont follow the advice in the documentation and set the incorrect mask values and pfs3 driver, then your get problems on the disk.
But even this is recoverable to another partition as long as you act quickly rather than leaving it for weeks.
 

Offline JetRacer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 501
    • Show only replies by JetRacer
Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2003, 09:21:54 PM »
We all know that one. IB often hangs when writing cache and corrupts the sensitive FFS.

If you got RAM (>64MB) then re-direct cache to ram:.

DO NOT SPEND MONEY ON PFS3! Go with Smart File System SFS. It's free and have never ever caused me any trouble (I kicked out FFS a long time ago). Note that SFS gives a huge leap of HDD performance if you got a modern HDD (yet another reason to dispose of FFS). FFS partitions can be converted to SFS without hassle.
*Zap! Zap!* Ha! Take that! *Kabooom!* Hey, that\'s not fair!
 

Offline MikeB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 323
    • Show only replies by MikeB
Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2003, 05:30:43 PM »
@jetracer

All your comments are no reason to say don't buy PFS3.
I've tested SFS on an Amiga A4000T with Cyberstorm SCSI Drive, it is slower than PFS3.
SFS is free but its beta!!!!
Plus the other reasons for not using SFS until its out of BETA stage are listed in their own documentation.  

People have a choice, and i'm not saying SFS is crap i'm saying its BETA stage. Do you really want people to store their only data on a beta filesystem??
You added comments about "DO NOT SPEND MONEY ON PFS3!", one big issue i have is if more Amiga users spend money on good software maybe developers would stay around.
The only comment i have for you is don't write stuff unless you know all the facts.


---------------------
There are a number of things you should know before using this
filesystem.

 - Do not use disk caching software which delays writes on a SFS disk.
   PowerCache is known to have this feature (but it can be disabled).
   SFS relies on data being written in a special order to the disk so
   it can keep your disk valid it all times.  Caching software which
   delays those writes can therefore interfere with this process.

 - Programs using ixemul (GNU C for example) might have problems with
   this filesystem as well, although this is unlikely.

 - Disk changes are implemented, but haven't been fully tested so you
   might experience problems.  The c:DiskChange command might help to
   avoid some problems by telling the filesystem explicitely that the
   disk has changed.

 - The filesystem doesn't pay attention to write-protection (the
   filesystem will get confused eventually if you've write protected
   the disk and start writing data to it).

 - Not all space gets freed again if you delete all files from a disk.
   This is caused by the fact that the filesystem allocates parts of
   the disk to store its administration blocks on demand.  These areas
   aren't freed again (but they are reused if needed!).  This will be
   fixed eventually, but is no more than a minor inconvience at the
   moment.

 - The filesystem puts up requesters during booting to inform you that
   last changes to the disk before the last reset weren't completed
   yet.  This means booting may be interrupted and you'll have to
   confirm the requesters first.

 - Although the filesystem supports blocksizes upto 32 kB, it is not
   recommended to use such large blocksizes.  SFS performs very well
   with small blocksizes and gains very little or even loses speed
   with larger blocksizes.  I'd recommend not using blocksizes larger
   than 2 kB.

 - The structure of future versions of this filesystem WILL change
   without being backwards compatible as long as the filesytem is in
   BETA stage.  This means you will need to reformat any SFS
   partitions you have before being able to use a new version.  Check
   the history to see whether or not you need to reformat your disk.

Don't forget this filesystem is BETA - this means it might crash your
machine and damage the files you stored with it.  Use it at your own
risk and always keep backups of your important data (but that goes
without saying anyway).
 

Offline SilvrDrgn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 1215
    • Show only replies by SilvrDrgn
    • http://mikerye.homeip.net
Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2003, 05:35:48 PM »
Quote
IB often hangs when writing cache and corrupts the sensitive FFS.

Maybe for you, but I can confidently say that I've never had that problem with iBrowse.
Michael
 

Offline LoTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 713
    • Show only replies by Lo
Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2003, 05:52:02 PM »
In all fairness to IBrowse, I believe my validation error was caused by my shutting off the computer while IBrowse was running so it didn't have a chance to "clean up" its cache. (Whatever that means).
[color=0000CC]GVP 060 @50 Pwr Twr [/color][color=FF0000]AMD_Amithlon_UAE[/color]
 

Offline Atheist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 820
    • Show only replies by Atheist
Re: Arrgh, IBrowse got me again!
« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2003, 03:12:29 AM »
Hi Lo,

Almost any type of program will cause that if you shut off the computer while it's writing, or say a database has not closed a file.

AmigaOne! SOME protocols must ALWAYS be followed.
\\"Which would you buy? The Crappy A1200, 15 years out of date... or the Mobile Phone that I have?\\" -- bloodline
So I guess that A500, 600, 1000, 2000, CDTV, CD32, are pure garbage then? Thanks for posting here.