> Let me clarify that question. Why would calculating a random access on > this system depend on caching, apart from storing the 32-byte directory > entry(ies)? ... Oh never mind, I probably misunderstood the remark.
Just for speed -- if you can keep the FAT in memory, then it's a lot faster than having to chug through the file links on disk when you have to jump to another point in the file... > > > If my calculations are correct, an entire FAT would require 128K so > > > caching > > > it would be rather expensive and therefore random access would be rather > > > slow. I'm definitely not in favour of a FAT-based system. > > > Yeah, but how else are we supposed to thread the files? > > What is "threading the files"? Chaining the sectors together to make up the actual file itself (well, that's what I mean) Si
