Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:75753 comp.sys.amiga.tech:17428 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cbmvax!jesup From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: HD Errors Message-ID: <17128@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 5 Jan 91 02:38:18 GMT References: <37492@cup.portal.com> <1991Jan2.190655.15790@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <1991Jan3.141624.25450@forwiss.uni-passau.de> <1991Jan3.230319.3648@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 41 [ first a side note: jdickson, your news software is messed up. It posts the entire initial message, then your new message (sometimes to a different group). It may be the way you edit messages, also. ] In article <1991Jan3.230319.3648@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson) writes: > I've heard that C= plans to limit the possibility of corrupting a >file system even more in Ver 2.0. Something about updating the disk so as to >keep little of it's static state in RAM. After C= implements this, the Amiga's >file system will probably fall into this realm you see all other file >systems in. This is already in 2.0 - it no longer keeps a memory copy of the entire allocation table, it gets it from disk as needed (or some such). 1.3x FFS is quite reliable - I never had it trash a partition. 2.0 FFS is more reliable yet (and better at defragging), and for those that like data safety more than speed, it support OFS format as well (though obviously slower than FFS format, due to the headers on the data, especially on a DMA HD. On a non-DMA HD, the difference will be less pronounced, but still very noticable.) Another point to realize is that most amiga users wouldn't know what to do with an fsck-equivalent. For non-simple problems, you had better have at least a modicum of knowlege about what a FS is (ditto on Unix - imagine you sterotypical person who uses Unix for word processing trying to deal with a non-simple problem reported by fsck). Unix does have more redundancy in their FS, though that has negative effects on speed, and the inode/data partitioning may help some, though it adds some annoying limits at times. BTW, I test new versions of Dos.library live on my development machine (and the latest version of the FS Steve has released at a given time), and have never trashed a drive or lost data. Had to reboot more than a few times, of course. ;-) A nice side-effect (for others) is that if there's a bug in Dos, I usually find it early on. (I admit I'm less likely to lose data with dos than a test version of the FS, though I often edit and compile new versions of dos under the test version of dos.) -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com BIX: rjesup The compiler runs Like a swift-flowing river I wait in silence. (From "The Zen of Programming") ;-)