Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!

Sections

Who's Online
39 user(s) are online (17 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 0
Guests: 39

more...

Headlines

 
  Register To Post  

SFS 1.x vs 2.x
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


See User information
Nice to see the SFS Support Forum here.

My question is: What is the difference between 1.x and 2.x versions? What are the advantages or disadvantages between these two editions? etc. Thanks!

Go to top
Re: SFS 1.x vs 2.x
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


See User information
From the changelog at http://strohmayer.org/sfs/
Quote:

SFS2 2.3 (4.3.2006)
- Changed structures to allow larger partitions (1 TB with 512
bytes/block, 64 TB with 32768 bytes/block).
- WARNING: Version 2.3 is NOT compatible to 2.2 and 2.1, you have
to reformat your SFS2 partitions.


Quote:

SFS2 2.1 (18.2.2006)
- Support for files > 4 GB added.
- DOSType is 'SFS\2' (0x53465302), add it to your kicklayout, don't
replace SFS 1.x, SFS 2.x doesn't support SFS 1.x partitions.
- You'll hardly find anything which works with files > 4 GB, but
developers can add support for large files to their applications
and test them with this SFS2 now, please use the SFS mailing list
if you have questions about how to add support for large files.
- Don't use it for important data yet, there are probably still bugs
in the > 4 GB file support left, but since nearly all applications
have to be changed to support files > 4 GB (and most even to work
correctly with files > 2 GB) it's IMHO better to release it now
even if it's not perfect yet.
- The max. partition size limits are unchanged, check the 1.245 entry.

Go to top
Re: SFS 1.x vs 2.x
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


See User information
@AmiKit
Quote:
What is the difference between 1.x and 2.x versions? What are the advantages or disadvantages between these two editions?

SFS2 supports files > 4 GB, but there are no data recovery tools for it yet, and the format will change again.

Unless you need files > 4 GB you should use SFS 1.x, and since there is next to no AmigaOS software which works with files > 4 GB yet, a lot fails with files >= 2 GB already, SFS2 is currently only interesting for developers:
AFAIK it's the only publically available AmigaOS file system which supports files > 4 GB, with SFS2 developers can test if their large file support works correctly after they have added it to their software.

The only software not part of AmigaOS4 I know of in which large file support was added is lha, as long as the developers don't change their software to work with files > 4 GB the large file support in SFS2, or any other file system, is quite useless

Go to top
Re: SFS 1.x vs 2.x
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


See User information
Thanks a lot!

Go to top
Re: SFS 1.x vs 2.x
Just popping in
Just popping in


See User information
Don't forget the part about 1.x is stable and 2.x is not. I actually ran it a couple of months back and changed back to 1.x as a result of some problems.

/shoe

Go to top
Re: SFS 1.x vs 2.x
Just popping in
Just popping in


See User information
I switched back to 1.x from 2.x a while ago too. 2.x seemed to have much slower write speeds to disk than 1.x did.

Go to top

  Register To Post

 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 ( 0 members and 1 Anonymous Users )




Powered by XOOPS 2.0 © 2001-2016 The XOOPS Project