Or> Wondering whats the advantage of the OS/2/NT HPFS over ext2fs.. if
there's any?
HPFS is now just for OS/2 and eComStation, not NT. OS/2 Warp Server for
e-business and eComStation have adopted a JFS (Journaling File System), but this
is not bootable. Boot partition must be either HPFS or FAT (DOS, not FAT32).
HPFS and ext2fs have differences, I don't really know which is more secure or
sturdier. HPFS supports extended attributes. ext2fs is case-sensitive, so that
readme.linux would not be recognized as referring to README.linux. I believe
Linux is working on a JFS, but don't know if it will be compatible with OS/2 and
eComStation JFS.
SH> If that is the case, then why does anyone use a 32 bit FAT?
Ricsi> because you have a maximum of 4.294.967.296 clusters instead of 65.535 !
Maximum partition size for fat16 is 2 GB (with 32KB clusters)
FAT32 can use _MUCH_ larger partitions, and simultanously have smaller
clusters.
Most people don't want to have 40 1 GB partitions, only to keep clustersize
at an acceptable rate,
or 20 2GB (max for fat16), when they buy a new 40 GB HDD.
(not even speaking of the fact that DOS/Win9X can't handle 40 drive
letters)
Considering that FAT16 is so wasteful of disk space on large partitions because
of cluster size/allocation unit, what is the cluster size/allocation unit for
FAT32? I have no experience with FAT32, nothing to test it on, nothing that
will format a partition for FAT32, or at least nothing that I know of. While I
might persuade Arachne to run on HPFS in OS/2 Warp 4 VDM, albeit slower than in
straight DOS, I don't think I could possibly persuade Arachne to run on FAT32.
