PFS Vs SFS Which is better.

[x56h34]

No problems here by using either of them. Pretty much the same, either way you go, IMHO.

I am using the latest FFS now since I have Fast ATA 4000 controller installed, and it split my hard drive  to smaller chunks (~4Gb each), so losing a partition likely won't affect me that much anymore. :-)

[Darth_X]

That's not a very nice avatar there x56h34.

[JetRacer]

The info given in the SFS docs in these matters is next to unexisting; check out the site instead (can't remember url, it's in the docs somewhere).

I have to object to SFS being slow reading lot's of small scattered files. Thats due to people messing with prefetch settings without knowing what they're doing. Set prefetch to minimum setting and the problem will go away. You can test different prefetch values easily by opening/closing a window with lot's of icons and do C:Avail FLUSH inbetween. However, I admit that it sucks that prefetch can't be disabled anymore. And yes, even with minimum prefetch it's slower than earlier version w/o prefetch, but not to a degree where I'd call it sluggish.

Note that there's alot of nice tools in the SFS archive, like SFSDefrag, SFSSalv, SFSConfig, etc.
I consider SFS "commercial quality", no matter the authors claims :-)

[olegil]

I used to use SFS until I discovered that with a fast harddrive and properly set up buffers/blocksize per partition FFS is actually fast enough for me.

Edit:
Also, I use a lot of Linux. Only Amiga filesystem with Linux support is FFS, so nothing else is really worth it.

[xeron]

Darth_X wrote:
That's not a very nice avatar there x56h34.

You've never played Creatures 2 on the C64? Its brilliant.

[csirac_]

I used SFS for about the 18 months before I got a PC (Uni work... I run Linux full time but still have Win98 in a VMware image to use some engineering software).

I have no complaints - it seemed faster with my SCSI setup (booting, anyway), no revalidations (which reduced my productivity signficantly with FFS), and i never had a partition corrupt itself, I cannot say the same about FFS. I tried no DC settings, maxtransfer, masks... it was just that my system was unstable (to a point I could tolerate, low memory) and would cause the HDD to become invalid.

Is PFS free now or something? If not I'd say go with SFS, it's reliability is great (for me) and the speed is good.

- Paul

[Piru]

Also, I use a lot of Linux. Only Amiga filesystem with Linux support is FFS, so nothing else is really worth it.

SFS linux driver

It is read only, though.

There are 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6 kernel adaptations of the patch. For further details ask the author Marek Szyprowski or .

[SHADES]

No, PFS is not free. I registered a long time ago. I was hoping it would continue to be updated but I don't think it has been touched in quite a number of years now.

The reason I asked about SFs is because SFS is another filesystem. One which I have very little to do with and with limited documentation. It sounds as though not too many people know of any differences between the two FS but that sfs may be slower. As for Linux compatibility, I'm sure there's a FFS compilation for it.  Even tools for Windows users to look inside a FFS hard disk. Still, if you wanted to run Linux, wouldn't you use Linux filesystem? if you needed anthing AMIGA you could always run UAE.

Anyway, for my AMIGA, PFS is very quick and get's over the Gig problems for now. It's a shame it's hard to find now, I'm sure AMIGA users would be interested if it was available on AMINET. I hope AI (or whoever is setting the standards for AMIGA OS) make the new FFS to be as good as this FS seems to be.