Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekig5!wayneck
From: wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga floppies (was: Re: Blitter vs. 80386)
Message-ID: <3194@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>
Date: 28 Aug 88 22:58:02 GMT
References: <8808180059.AA05505@cory.Berkeley.EDU> <2505@sugar.uu.net> <2568@sugar.uu.net>
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 22

In article <2568@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> 
> MOST Amiga directories have fewer than 64 files in them. About the only
> directory you're going to find with worse behaviour under the UNIX file
> system than the AmigaDOS one is c:. There aren't that many occasions for
> large directory structures under AmigaDOS... there's no /usr/lib/termcap,
> or /usr/mail, or /dev, or /usr/spool/uucp.

Well maybe you should try doing some animation, I find that I have a 
lot of directories with more than 64 files in them.  Also I really don't 
believe the comparsion to the UNIX file system is valid.  I worked on
4 or 5 different UNIX machine and the performance varies widely as far
as the file system in concern.  I never seen another machine that does
a simple directory as slow as the Amiga does.  There is simply no reason
for such a bad file system, and I find it hard to compare to anything. 

However all things considered, the Amiga file system is the only thing 
that is really awful on the Amiga.  So I'm looking forward to getting the 
new fast file system in 1.3 and prehaps it will be as good as the rest 
of the Amiga.

                                      Wayne Knapp