Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Some Filesystem Stuff I Cooked Up...
Message-ID: <820@sugar.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Sep-87 11:18:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: sugar.820
Posted: Fri Sep 25 11:18:54 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Sep-87 03:07:50 EDT
References: <4013@well.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 23
Summary: Interesting.

Interesting idea. I like the multiple volumes. I don't like the hash tables.
I like having directories as files (wonder why)?

There's a good reason for storing the file name seperately from the file data:
links. I'm sure you understand the advantages of these. How about storing the
filename and file number in the directory, and then stick the rest of the
data (maybe even with a filename, the way it is now) together at the beginning
of the disk? Or stick it with the file and make the filenumber the first block
number. After all... most of the time when you're looking at filenames that's
all you want.

As for the naming convention, how about taking a leaf from UNIX' book.

df0a: first volume on the drive...
df0b: second volume on the drive...

The semantics of df0: wedge a little. diskcopy wants it to mean the whole
drive. copy wants it to be the same as df0a:. For that matter what happens
if you diskcopy df0a: df0b:?
-- 
-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
--                 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?
-- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.