Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!easy!lron From: lron@easy.lrcd.com (Dwight Hubbard) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Some WB2.0 Peeves Message-ID: Date: 26 Jun 91 07:08:56 GMT Article-I.D.: easy.lron.5272 References: <1991Jun23.210647.20152@news.iastate.edu> <1991Jun24.000524.378@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1991Jun25.032545.7153@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <1991Jun25.112729.27772@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Organization: You must be talking about someone else. Lines: 23 In article <1991Jun25.112729.27772@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>>BTW, Why on earth didn't C= come up with a decent file system? The FFS >>is no better (I can't tell any difference) for floppies and is the >>worst file system I have ever seen. Having studied and implemented some >>real file systems I'd like to know where C= copied their's from and >>WHY? > > Hmm, the FFS seems much faster for floppies in 2.0. The filesystem has >had many improvements. Why don't you tell us why it sucks? The Amiga >filesystem is slower at scanning directories than it is at locating >a file (e.g. a cp file1 file2 file3 file4 file5 file6 ... file40 destdir >will locate all the files very quickly, but a "list" will take a while. >On the opposite end, IBM dirs come up quickly, but sometimes they take a >long time to open a file, like on a locate bbs with over 500 files >in one of the dirs, it takes 5-9 seconds to "lock" the file down downloading. >) Also, file notification has been added. I Ran Diskspeed on both Old FS floppies and FFS floppies and didn't see any significant speedup, although I could store more information on the disk. The speedup is very noticable with a faster device such as a hard drive though and I don't see where the FFS can be called anything but a real file system when there have been people claiming 1.5+Mbps on FFS hard drives on the A3000.