PFS3 vs SFS

[Framiga]

Hi All,

i'm still using PFS3 18.5 from a life but in the last week, i'v downloaded SFS (and today downloaded and installed the lastversion 1.212).

I've done some intensive testings on the same HD with the internal A4000 IDE host interface.

So . . .SFS is terribly slow in:

Dir-Scan  (less than last OS3.9 FFS)

Delete (the worst)

Seek/Reed

I've set 200 buffers for the SFS partition (PFS3 only 100)

Have i set something wrong?

Thanks

Cheers

PS-Benchmark tool= SysSpeed 2.6

[lionstorm]

what blocksize do you use ? do you use the same to do the comparison ?
Lio

[Framiga]

@ lionstorm

512 the same as in PFS3.

Ciao

PS- note that SFS il slower ONLY in that 3 test comparision.

[lionstorm]

I anyway prefer sfs over ffs because it supports big hardddrives > 4Go, does not get corrupted and is usefull in some hyperion games where lots of datas needs to be loaded.
Lio

[Jope]

lionstorm wrote:
I anyway prefer sfs over ffs because it supports big hardddrives > 4Go, does not get corrupted and is usefull in some hyperion games where lots of datas needs to be loaded.
Lio

Yeah, but PFS3 does all that too.. This wasn't an FFS vs SFS contest, but a PFS3 vs SFS one. :-)

[Brian]

Am I the only one who think "Not again!"?

[Framiga]

@Jope

i've installed SFS, due a problem with an app that i'm testing.

With PFS3 i have some corrupted blocks and other strange behaviours (very strange for PFS3) so i've switched (for only one partition), to SFS lastversion.

SFS seems very slow in the Delete operation.

Anyway a very good replacment for PFS3.

Ciao

.

[amigamad]

SFS seems very slow in the Delete operation.

With pfs3 it dont delete whatever you want to delete until you need the hardrive space, the aplication or game was taking it marks it as deleted and frees the space but only deletes when the space is needed by new software. :-)

[Amiga1200PPC]

Newer SFS versions are terrilby slow.
Some older Version were much faster, I think 1.85 or something.

[Framiga]

by Wishmaster on 2003/11/12 14:49:12

Newer SFS versions are terrilby slow.
Some older Version were much faster, I think 1.85 or something.

yes i agree but just a little :-)

Before installing the last SFS 1.212, i've tested SFS 1.193 (OS3.9 CD) but the speed is quite the same.

I don't know about SFS 1.85.(seems a very old version)

Ciao

[lempkee]

blocksize SHOULD always be 1024 !!!!!

anyway latest sfs is fast here , i get seek times under 100 and i get speeds upto 8.9 megs per sec on my olllld amiga 1200 with ppc + scsi.

but yes pfs3 is faster but also more intensive to the cpu..

anyway fix the blocksize and hehe btw in pfs docs it says 1024 block size! not 512 ...

good luck!

[Framiga]

@Lempkee

with my 040@30mhz and the internal A4000 IDE port?

Already tryed in the past, but with no speed increase.

Ciao

PS- now with PFS3 i have near 9 times speed more than a plain 040@25Mhz with FFS (in Create operation)

PPS- From the docs: suggested blocksize for PFS3=512K . . .use 1024 only with fast and modern SCSI HD.

For SFS . .  .quite the same.

[CU_AMiGA]

This is all very well but how the HELL do i get SFS up and running? I have wiped out all of my Hard Drive and got rid of FFS cos people recommened SFS and when i try to get SFS installed and usable then people don't bother replying when i am in trouble!!! I am so tempted to go back to FFS, the HD may have been ####ted up, but at least it was half working.

(and yes i am angry)

@lempkee

I have read the SFS docs and it is to my knowledge that 512k blocksize is used and not 1024.

[Framiga]

Hi CU_AMiGA

OK . . .relax . . .sit down . . .drink a camomilla :-)

You have done the right thimg. SFS is more reliable and . . .  .it is free!

I was talking about speed not reliability.

Stay with SFS without any problem :-)

Ciao

[Amiga1200PPC]

You install SFS the same way you do with FFS.
In HDToolsbox you add it to the RDB. Give it a name like 0x53465300
Then select it in the Partition Settings window.