🚀 go-pugleaf

In <8C6942F.005D000280.uuout@interzone.apana.org.au>, tetsuo@interzone.apana.org.au (TETSUO) writes:
>You're nuts!
>
>I've explored HPFS. IT doesn't give "performance boosts" or whatever, it's only
>advantage is that it has a better way of organising files so they dont get
>fragmented, and it puts the allocation table in the Middle of the disk instead
>of the centre. FAT under OS/2 is "SUPER-FAT" and has alot of improvements over
>the Default FAT under DOS which give it better performance.
>
>FAT is usable under OS/2, DOS, Win, Win95, WinNT, Linux and even Macs can
>read/write to it with the driver installed! I really cannot see a single
>argument that outwieghs the FAT vs HPFS in favour of HPFS. Really? C'mon, all
>the advantages of HPFS don't add up to anything when compared to the
>multi-platform compatibility you get with FAT. Even on a speed scale you wont
>find any noticable difference.

Benefits of HPFS over FAT:

Support for long file names, upper and lower case, extended character sets

Native (non-fragile) support for EA's: FAT is just _too_ fragile to 
support this, and the workplace shell depends on it heavily.

Higher performance (check your benchmarks). FAT degrades rapidly as 
drive size goes up. HPFS degrades a lot less. FAT degrades rapidly 
with lots of files in directories, HPFS degrades a lot less. Try 
unzipping an icon file with say 3,000 files in it to see the 
difference: FAT: 15 mins to get half-way through, HPFS: 3 mins till 
done!

Much (_much_) greater integrity: signatures at the beginning of system
structure sectors, forwards and backwards links in fnode trees. CHKDSK
(run repeatedly at /F:2) can repair almost all damage to HPFS systems.
On FAT, you need to buy additional utilities, and even then, there are
no guarantees.

Much better granularity: FAT allocates clusters which can be very 
large (64 KBytes max), giving rise to wasted 'slack space'. HPFS 
allocates sectors only: much less wasted space.

Much less fragmentation, although correctly-written OS/2 applications 
cause less fragmentation on FAT, too.

Not compatible with Win95: you don't have to worry about what Win95 
might be doing to your file system.

Disadvantages:

Requires 300 KBytes RAM for code, plus more for its cache memory.

Requires third-party drivers to access under DOS and Linux. But these 
are inexpensive.

In short, I advise my students in OS/2 support classes to use HPFS in 
all but exceptional circumstances. And when I explain the details and 
demonstrate the performance difference, everyone agrees.

FAT is roadkill, these days. If you want to keep using old technology 
like Win95, that's fine, but please don't to cripple other people's 
systems for its sake.

Best,

--- Les

+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Les Bell                         Tel: +61 2 451 1144  |
| lesbell@ibm.net                  Fax: +61 2 451 1122  |
| lesbell@syd.interconnect.com.au  PO Box 297           |
| http://www.lesbell.com.au        Neutral Bay NSW 2089 |
| CIS: 71210,104                   Australia            |
+-------------------------------------------------------+