Comments: Authenticated sender is <alaric+abwillms AT sdps DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
From: "Alaric B. Williams" <alaric AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
To: Lorier <lorier AT ihug DOT co DOT nz>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 21:51:56 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Usage of directory entries
Reply-to: alaric AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk
CC: Matthias DOT Paul AT post DOT rwth-aachen DOT de, opendos-developer AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <m0wHoyw-000FldC@hn.planet.gen.nz>
Message-ID: <861310128.0527497.0@abwillms.demon.co.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On 17 Apr 97 at 23:04, Lorier wrote:

> 1k Clusters up to a Terabyte (I think, certainly more than a gig anyway),
> where MS keep kluding FAT :(  With ext2 we can show a far more efficient
> FileSystem and show how bloated FAT really is :)

An extent based filer like VSTa uses or, I deduce, NTFS is (it uses
512 byte allocation units) can be more efficient, I think; disk
space is managed like malloc allocates blocks of RAM, in runs of 
sectors. Unless it gets really fragmented, this is smaller than having 
free-space bitmaps and indirection blocks and all that. And smaller
means faster, no? :-)

(many UNIX filers are quicker at random access since having indirect
index blocks helps the seeking into files business, but are slower
for sequential access, since the index blocks have to be loaded.
FAT is even slower than either of them!)

ABW
--
Alaric B. Williams (alaric AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk)

   ---<## OpenDOS FAQ ##>---

Plain HTML: http://www.delorie.com/opendos/faq/
            http://www.deltasoft.com/faq.html

Fancy HTML: http://www.deltasoft.com/faq0000.html