> > FFS distributes the disk meta-data over the disk far more than PFS3, and
> > contains more redundant information.
>
> True, it's also the reason for the massive difference in directory
> handling speeds. Keeping the directory data in one place is a little
> more susceptible to hardware errors, but it far faster and more
> space-efficient.
It should be possible to get the best of both worlds, which is what I'm
attempting to do (albeit for Linux).
> > This means that if a portion of the
> > disk gets blatted, you can cause a lot more damage to a PFS3 partition
> > than you can a FFS partition.
>
> Probably true, /if/ you manage to cause physical damage to the disk
> while in use.
A dying motherboard/SCSI controller/disk will do that for you quite
happily.
*sigh*
I know.
Also, if you manage to interrupt the format command before it has got
very far, you will have destroyed some very important PFS3 data
structures. However, you can recover a lot of data from a
partially-formatted FFS partition.
Matthew
--
Riker: Our memory pathways have become accustomed to your sensory input.
Data: I understand - I'm fond of you too, Commander. And you too Counsellor
_____________________________________________________________
NetConnect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send an 'unsubcribe'
message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
