On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Peter Flinkfelt wrote:
> I thought the effeciency of ext2 over FAT16/32 was the lack of
> 'clusters'? Thus allowing the actual filesystem to have smaller files,
> of which Linux uses a lot, and make more efficient use of disk space?
> Isn't this why a UMSDOS install is a last resort for installing Linux?
>
The reason UMSDOS is not ideal is that a FAT filesystem contains no
inodes, no UNIX file permissions, no support for links ... This means that
a new layer has to be added between the system and the filesystem
(UMSDOS). This layer slows file access considerably.
Frank
>
> Peter
>
