Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/09/12/00:51:28
In article <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970911165851 DOT 13452D-100000 AT is>, Eli Zaretskii
<eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> writes
>
>On 7 Sep 1997, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>
>> FAT serves a becessary function, tracking which disk blocks are free and
>> which are not. It uses a bit for every block on a disk. As far as I
>> understand it, the only real problem is it takes up a fair bit of space.
>> On the other hand I can't think what the alternative could be.
>
>One alternative is the Unix-style inode filesystem, where in essence the
>table of used blocks for each file grows as the file size grows. Any
>book on Unix will describe the details of this.
>
>NTFS and HPFS (from NT and OS/2, respectively) are other alternatives.
>
>AFAIK, none of these waste more than 511 bytes for any given file.
It gets better: Unix filesystems are moving to 'frags'. which allow
allocations smaller than a disk sector to be merged... I can't think of
a way to get more efficient use of space ;)
---
Paul Shirley: my email address is 'obvious'ly anti-spammed
- Raw text -