On Thu, 3 Nov 1994 13:58:06 +0000 (GMT), Simon Cooke said: > Okay... the main problem that I can see with that is it's not going to be > much fun to play with -- the block lists are extremely delocalised, or so it > seems... Also, they seem much more wasteful than the FAT system in MSDOS due > to the minium size of sector limit... (Ie small files require 512 bytes > whatever > their size to store their links)
The block lists are delocalised (to a certain extent), but I don't quite see what disadvantage that is. A small file does not require 512 bytes to store its block list. In +3DOS up to 16 block numbers can be stored in the directory entry (the directory entry being 32 bytes in size), whereas in Unix up to 10 block numbers can be stored in the i-node (the i-node being 64 bytes in size, or 32 for Minix). It is only files larger than that which need a whole disk block to store the list. imc
