h a l f b a k e r yNow, More Pleasing Odor!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
by having two or more differnt sizes of clusters on a drive, you can manage space more efficiently - this would mean that all your system files would waste less space yet the file allocation table wouldn't have too many blocks to make it slow or unusable.
Apple's HFS Plus
http://developer.ap...otes/tn/tn1150.html
[johan, Mar 05 2000]
[link]
|
| |
Um, most filesystems already do this.
Unix filesystems typically have "blocks"
and "fragments", for example. It's only
lame, legacy-ridden (read: DOS) filesystems
that are limited to a single cluster size. |
|
| |
Or do I misunderstand your idea? |
|
| |
Apple introduced better disk space management in MacOS 8.1 (Shipped about
Jan 1998?) I added a link. Look at the section called "Efficient Use of
Disk Space." |
|
| |
just to make one thing clear - when i said 'drive', i meant 'partition' |
|
| |
Whether it's called a drive or a partition, most file systems allow for variable cluster sizes. |
|
| |
@BigThor
Ok, it's been 10 years and I've yet to hear of a filesystem that uses multiple cluster sizes on the same volume. Otoh, I don't see what benefit that could possibly give. |
|
| |
If each physical track was defined as a cluster to the file-system, then that would be perfect for media files and archives. [edit: cylinder, not track, thanks [supercat]] |
|
| |
HFS Plus, like many systems, allows for different volumes to have different cluster sizes; any particular volume is limited to a single size. |
|
| |
Personally, I would like to see a file system subdivided into a "big files" area and a "small files" area. The "big files" area would be mapped as one cluster per cylinder; the "small files" area would be mapped normally. The partition between the two halves could shift depending upon the contents of the volume. |
|
| |