On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 01:53:42AM -0800, Jim Varnum wrote:
>
> > Definitely right about a ``real'' Linux filesystem being better.
> > My current[1] Linux usage started out with DOSLinux 4.x a few years ago.
> > It was UMSDOS so the Linux setup would suffer right along with any
> > disk problems I might have had (fairly common when using the AOL software
> > it seemed). At times this would cause loss of Linux files because
> > special hidden files used by the UMSDOS system were gone or trashed
> > after doing a scandisk or NDD fix-up.
>
> I find this interesting....I have never seen any hidden files in any
> UMSDOS linux distribution....I may have simply missed them but I don't
> think so. If anyone could point me to one I'd be grateful. I've
> defragged my drive and moved parts of the linux directory to other
> partitions (more on that in a moment) and never had a problem.
>
My post was a bit rushed so details were left out.
Not `hidden' files in the DOS sense. UMSDOS uses --linux-.--- files
for mapping. You see them in DOS but not under Linux of course.
If for some reason any of those files get trashed and
aren't fixed by scandisk one may lose some mapping information.
Sometimes you may see it when running Linux which means something
screwed up. Running umssync might restore the info but at times it
wouldn't and a Linux directory or files that were once visible under Linux
would now show up as DOS 8.3 files instead or something.
That's from memory. I was using a 386 and the drive I had at the time
seemed unreliable and at times I'd lose a mapping file and thus lose
some directory info under Linux.
It wasn't really a fatal problem or anything, just an annoyance.
Example: Let's say I had a download directory, /home/marcdw/download,
and it had files in it. Stuff like filename.src.tar.gz.
If the mapping file was trashed either the download directory
was no longer called that (I forget exactly what happens there) or
the filenames were now DOS 8.3 names.
Something like that. Flaky memory, sorry.
I should've read the HOWTO back then which explains the use
of those translation/mapping files.
> I believe the UMSDOS FAQ or HOW-TO states that many file operations are
> faster with UMSDOS rather than with ext2 due to the simpler structure of
> the FAT16 file system. Personally, I've had both native linux and UMSDOS
> linux on my machine and have never noticed a difference in the
> performance.
>
My poor performance may have had something to do with machine speed
and that poor drive. The one thing I rememeber though was the amount
of disk activity. Under UMSDOS X would start up slower and other things
just seemed slower. Once I had created an ext2 system things ran
a lot better.
I remember once not being able to compile a kernel as it would always
fail during a `make dep' at the exact same spot. I even posted to a
Linux newsgroup looking for help to no avail. When I moved over to
ext2 the problem went away. Not sure what the relationship was between
the FAT system and the make failure.
BTW, the moving to ext2 was a straight copy over from UMSDOS so no changes
were made anywhere.
> No I think there are still several UMSDOS distributions available. I use
> Pygmy linux. It is the best UMSDOS linux I've found to date. I've tried
> HAL91, mulinux, dragon, xdenu, monkey and abunch others.
>
Ah, cool. Thanks for the verify.
> The biggest advantage that I can see to using UMSDOS is that it provides
> a wonderful safety net in that when I screw things up by experimenting
> with some configuration file and linux doesn't boot, I can reboot to DOS
> and fix the offending configuration file from there. Voila....linux runs
> again. Naturally this is a boon for a newbie bent on figuring and
> playing like me ;-)
>
Yeah. I had kept dragon on the DOS side as my `rescue disk'. It saved my
rear a few times.
> I have a computer with more than enough hard drive space (2 gig) to
> install the largest of distributions but that's not what I wanted to do.
> I wanted a small linux that I could add to. Build it up with the apps I
> want.
>
That old DOSLinux was only about 40MB yet fairly complete. Up until
`The Great Crash of `99' it turned into a fully customized setup
using over 1GB of space (ext2). Everything was downloaded since I didn't
own a CD-ROM at the time.
Too bad it didn't get backed up. However, the UMSDOS stuff was, before the
changeover, so I can always restore my good old setup if need be.
Great post by the way. Once I get a DOS machine up and running (I so miss
my preferred environment) I do plan on putting a small UMSDOS setup on it.
Marc
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
