SFS problem

[mechy]

Today I tried to install SFS with a modified WB 3.1 INSTALL disk. I discarded what was not needed and placed Smartfilesystem 1.279 in the "L" drawer and SFSformat in the root.

I more or less followed the tutorial as described in the wiki that explains how to use winuae to prep a HD with SFS for use in an A1200. Obviously I just skipped the winuae part.

I used a 60gb HD that I wanted to split in 2. I made one DH0: with 400Mb and  with the remaining space I made DH1:

DH0: shows up fine and I can format it with SFSformat after it shows up as DH0:ndos

But now the problem: DH1: show up fine in HDtoolbox ( but wrong partition size ) but it does not show up on my workbench as DH1:ndos and so I can not format it.

On DH0: I could install workbench without problems, and it boots fine.

So how do I get my second partition with all the diskspace ?

Sfs is a good filesystem, its much faster than FFS and supports long filenames,but it cannot fix the scsi.device which only supports 4gb partitions! you need to use nsd or td64 patches.

I have run SFS since it originally came out,and my system is still going fine(10 yrs?) as a matter of fact,its run on all the amigas i have.. Don't listen to the people above who don't set their stuff up correct and then complain its not reliable.You will need td64 and or nsd patch to be able to use all of the 60gb hd.
Its worth getting the full 1.277 archive that has the sfs docs. read them!

http://strohmayer.org/

Be sure to set the mask and max transfer on the crappy 1200 ide so you don't have problems(i assume you are using a A1200).values for these are suggested in the docs.you MUST do this.be sure to hit return where you type the mask and max transfer in or the values won't "stick".
As far as i know you should ALWAYS format sfs with the quick option. You can use workbench to format it just fine,you do not need to use sfs format.
you can use SFSCHECK in the 1.277 archive also to check the partition and make sure its ok after formatting.

Its amazing so much misinfo and problems still go on with sfs. RTFM people

[Thomas]

SFS is a nice file system with good features. But it's also very risky because there is not much support for it out there. It might run very stable over a long time, but *if* there is something wrong with an SFS partition, it's very difficult to get your data back, especially if you are not a programmer who wants to take the opporunity to develop a working salvage tool. There's SFSSalv and there's SFScheck, but there are enough threads in different forums which report these programs to not work correctly. In most cases, if something goes wrong with SFS, the only possibility to recover is to format the partition and to restore a backup.

So the conclusion is, if you choose to use SFS, make regular backups. Yes, this advice applies to every file system, but for SFS it is more important than for FFS. Firstly because there are many more salvage programs out there supporting FFS and secondly because FFS stores data in such a redundant manner that it's easy to recover files from a damaged partition.

The biggest mistake people make is that they confuse the lack of the need to validate with data safety. In fact data is more safe on an FFS partition than on an SFS partition.

[SimonV]

So the current situation is the I have a working dh0: SFSformatted SYSTEM partition. So If I install the patches now, it should solve my problems with the big partitions after a reboot ?

About the maxtransfer and as such I used what was stated here: http://wiki.classicamiga.com/How_to_install_SFS_onto_a_real_Harddrive_within_WinUAE

I will however check the docs that are supplied with 1.277 and make sure.

[AmiDude]

Sfs is a good filesystem, its much faster than FFS...

People keep saying that all the time. But SysInfo reports the same speed for partions
formatted with FFS. For example:

I have an A1200/030/50Mhz 64MB - KickROMs 3.1 - WB 3.1 - 2GB HD.
Partition #1: 100MB, FFS filesystem.
Partition #2: 250MB, FFS filesystem.
Partition #3: 1650MB, SFS filesystem, (I've set the right mask and max transfer from
the SFS readme file)

SysInfo reports for all 3 partitions 2,5MB/s. So how does it come that SFS filesystem
isn't any faster?  :confused:
The same goes for my A1200 with 060 CPU.

[Golem!dk]

So the current situation is the I have a working dh0: SFSformatted SYSTEM partition. So If I install the patches now, it should solve my problems with the big partitions after a reboot ?

Once you have the patches installed you should check that the drive size is correctly detected and repartition to use the full capacity.

About the maxtransfer and as such I used what was stated here: http://wiki.classicamiga.com/How_to_install_SFS_onto_a_real_Harddrive_within_WinUAE

Looks about right.

[Golem!dk]

People keep saying that all the time. But SysInfo reports the same speed for partions formatted with FFS.

Is SysInfo even using the filesystem?

[AmiDude]

Is SysInfo even using the filesystem?

SysInfo is a program that has an option that can measure the speed of your hardisk.
It doesn't matter if the partition is SFS or FFS.

[Golem!dk]

SysInfo is a program that has an option that can measure the speed of your hardisk.
It doesn't matter if the partition is SFS or FFS.

So no point in mentioning it in a comparision of performance between filesystems?

[AmiDude]

So no point in mentioning it in a comparision of performance between filesystems?

Well, I thought it just would measure the speed of the different partitions.
So the SFS partition should be faster, but SysInfo doesn't notice the speed difference.
And honestly, I can't notice it as well in overall usage. And like mentioned before:
SFS is very buggy.
I only use the SFS partition for ADF files with long names.

[Thomas]

So no point in mentioning it in a comparision of performance between filesystems?

Right. MB/s is a unit for transfer speed between harddisk and computer, it is completely independent of the file system used.

File system speed is measured by checking how fast a directory with many entries can be read, how many files can be created / opened / deleted in a certain amount of time and how fast a program can seek a random position in a large file.

[mechy]

People keep saying that all the time. But SysInfo reports the same speed for partions
formatted with FFS. For example:

I have an A1200/030/50Mhz 64MB - KickROMs 3.1 - WB 3.1 - 2GB HD.
Partition #1: 100MB, FFS filesystem.
Partition #2: 250MB, FFS filesystem.
Partition #3: 1650MB, SFS filesystem, (I've set the right mask and max transfer from
the SFS readme file)

SysInfo reports for all 3 partitions 2,5MB/s. So how does it come that SFS filesystem
isn't any faster?  :confused:
The same goes for my A1200 with 060 CPU.

SysMISinfo is useless for disk speed testing imho.

try something like diskspeed 4.2,which will actually flog the drives a bit under different situations. It may be if you are using old drives you are up against the limit they can move.
have you tried moving large files and timing it on both?
Also don't assume everyone uses a bog standard 1200 ide. I use a cyberstorm UWscsi as well as warp engine scsi and it shines there.A4000t(4091) etc.I have noticed a small speed increase as well as the buffered A4000 ide also.The 1200 unbuffered ide is probabaly the least place you would see a gain.

[mechy]

SFS is a nice file system with good features. But it's also very risky because there is not much support for it out there. It might run very stable over a long time, but *if* there is something wrong with an SFS partition, it's very difficult to get your data back, especially if you are not a programmer who wants to take the opporunity to develop a working salvage tool. There's SFSSalv and there's SFScheck, but there are enough threads in different forums which report these programs to not work correctly. In most cases, if something goes wrong with SFS, the only possibility to recover is to format the partition and to restore a backup.

So the conclusion is, if you choose to use SFS, make regular backups. Yes, this advice applies to every file system, but for SFS it is more important than for FFS. Firstly because there are many more salvage programs out there supporting FFS and secondly because FFS stores data in such a redundant manner that it's easy to recover files from a damaged partition.

The biggest mistake people make is that they confuse the lack of the need to validate with data safety. In fact data is more safe on an FFS partition than on an SFS partition.

Well i agree with the fact that sfs is a little harder to get the data back,but only a fool would not back his system up if its important.Theres really no excuse for not making backups,since its so easy these days(especially with a deneb usb or some such). Cf's and adapters are cheap, CD's,etc there are many ways. as long as you have a boot disk to get back in the worst of cases. i dont see how someone could confuse lack of validation with safety.Although i certainly don't miss validation on ffs.

[Thomas]

only a fool would not back his system

Then there are a lot of fools out there (me included).

i dont see how someone could confuse lack of validation with safety.

It does not validate, therefore it is more stable, therefore it is more safe. An easy conclusion most of the fools make (me excluded).


Also you don't make a backup every hour or so. A disk fault usually happens when you work with the computer and when you work with the computer, the data which is important changes a lot. In this situation nothing can be older than the backup from yesterday.

[mechy]

Then there are a lot of fools out there (me included).



It does not validate, therefore it is more stable, therefore it is more safe. An easy conclusion most of the fools make (me excluded).


Also you don't make a backup every hour or so. A disk fault usually happens when you work with the computer and when you work with the computer, the data which is important changes a lot. In this situation nothing can be older than the backup from yesterday.

Well there is soft raid for amiga even hardware raids fail sometimes.We are all playing the odds
I dont use this myself,but may be a partial solution. In any case,life is never perfect

[hardlink]

Firstly because there are many more salvage programs out there supporting FFS and secondly because FFS stores data in such a redundant manner that it's easy to recover files from a damaged partition.

For all it's drawbacks, I can say that in 22 continuous years of using FFS, I have  never lost even a single file, except due to hard disk physical failure (not the fault of FFS). Of course, I have resorted to DiskSalv many times - thank you Dave Haynie.

[wawrzon]

@mechy: best partial solution is a file system that doesnt get corrupted to soon, and that isnt sfs in my book. i have to evaluate pfs, but the original ffs was trusty too in its time, validation aside.

as for sfs since there are so many variants, original, strohmayers 68k and os4, mos etc its quite difficult to determine which fails and which not. misunderstandings are certain.