#2.04 FFS vs. 1.3 FFS
53 messages in this thread
I was wondering if anyone out there knew what the actual differences are
between the new 2.04 Fastfilesystem in ROM, and the 1.3 FFS?
My manual states that I should reformat my hard drive with the new FFS to
see new performance gains in my hard drive. After playing with my old 1.3
FFS w/ 2.04, I backed up my hard drive and reformatted it with what I think
is the new FFS. I see no real speed increase.
How can I tell if I'm running the new FFS or still the old FFS?
I don't know about the differences between the two FFS's with hard drives,
but you can now boot from FFS disks.
Ados 2.04's FFS, works with Floppies too, with the old FFS you had to
manually alert the system (with DiskChange) that a new disk has been
inserted.
i]Ron.
Joe,
You no longer need a FileSystem line in your mountlist if it's a
mounted drive via the MOUNT command. If it's an autoboot drive, you'll
have to contact the manufacturer on how to insure that it uses the ROM'ed
filesystem, not a loadable file.
In some cases, this may require a rePREP (or equivalent) to
properly set things up.
My tests with it showed it to be faster ( I forget the exact
amount, I think about 20%).
Andy Finkel stops in here once in a while…he'd have the details
on what's different, and how much faster it is.
Don
I spoke to the manufacturer about it – they said they tested their
controller with 2.0 a year ago in Germany and it worked fine. Did they
have the 2.04 FFS a year ago (or some form of it)? I think the person did
not quite understand the new 2.04 FFS. I'm using an ALF controller from
Prespect' in Cananda. They also mentioned that the ALF controller is very
fast as is, and I will see no real speed increase. Does this sound true?
In its PREP disk, it has Filesysstem and says FFS, Old filesystem, and
NONE. I picked FFS, but that does not insure that I'm running the new 2.04
one, right?
Joe,
I can't tell you exactly what has changed in the FFS, or exactly
when it changed.
However, if the last time they checked anything was a year
ago…things definately changed since then.
Yes…an improved filesystem will show a speed up even on a fast
drive.
I've never used an ALF, so can't be sure what their prep software
does, but strongly suspect it's loading a version of FFS from disk into the
rigid disk blocks (RDBs).
IF you've got time to play…see what happens if you tell it NONE.
OF course, make a backup before you do anything.
Don
I will play with it tonite, and let you know what happens. I made ac
omplete backup prior to reformatting my hard drive… so nothing will be
lost. (Plus, every time I upgrade, it gives me a good opportunity to delete
alot of files that I really no longer need)
The new FFS organizes the blocks in the file on the disk better; this will
improve your access times. It also supports the new 2.0 packets. You can
use the new one in place of the old one interchangably; but you won't get
all the speed improvements that you could if you let the new FFS arrange
the files on the disk.
The new FFS also attempts to keep the directory structure on the disk up to
date at all times, which helps in times of power failures…you have less
to lose.
You can get the version of the filesystem by using the 2.04 version command
on a drive you're curious about, ie
version dh3:
Note: 1.3 FFS won't have a version number.
andy
I did a version DH0: command and got the response: fs 37.26 Does this mean
I'm running the new 2.04 FFS, since it gave me a version number?
yes, it means you are running 2.04 FFS on DH0: However, you may be running
a different version on a different drive.
andy
I just did a 'version DH0:' command and it gave me 'Warning – pre-2.0 file
system' message. Since I haven't formatted under WB2.0 that makes sense.
Is everyone saying that I'll get a 20% speed increase or such by
reformatting? Sounds too good to be true…. (I gather folks mean just
reformat with the DOS format command, not the GVP FaaaastPrep software?)
Speaking of speed, reading a review of the 040's in AW mentioned that the
SCSI controller on the CSA 40/4 Magnum (68040 board) would be able to
achieve 4-10 mb transfer speed per sec (depends on speed of drive).
Assuming that the SCSI and drive can xfer this fast (?), would that make
fast real-time HD playback of anims a possibility? Are there other
limitations that would limit playback speed? (ie. can only so much data
flow in/out of CHIP ram each sec? or are data paths too slow?) Just
curious….
–jp–seattle–
John,
Those data rates are burst rates…not sustained rates. The
limiting factor is the drive itself. Let's take a fairly typical large,
fast SCSI HD.
15 heads, 35 sectors per track, 1:1 interleave, essentially 0 time
to switch heads and spinning at 3600 rpm.
That means it is spinning at 60 times per second…thus you could
read any one track 60 times in once second. 35 sectors x 512 bytes per
sector x 60 means the maximum speed you can get data off the drive is
1,075,200 bytes per second.
But since you don't constantly read a single track, then you also
have to account for head stepping/settling time. With our 15 heads, as
long as you stay in the same cylinder…that time is essentially 0. So you
can read the first 15 tracks (idealy) in 15 revolutions. But now you need
to step and that can take anywhere from ~15ms on up. That's at least 1
revolution (16.67ms per rev). Since 15 (heads) goes into 60 (revs) 4
times…you lose 4 revs every second if you only step 1 cylinder at a time.
Thus instead of being able to read 60 tracks, you can only read 56 each
second. That lowers the max data rate to 56 x 35 x 512 or 1,003,520 bytes
per second. And that presumes that all the data is laid out sequentially.
In real life, that almost never happens.
So your real data rate will always be lower.
With disk cacheing schemes, or intelligent on-drive data buffering,
it's possible for the drive to store up to X amount of data from the read,
and then send it down the bus at high speed (as you mentioned up to 4 Meg
per sec)…but that's only in brief bursts. Sustained rates on drives like
described above will always be much lower than the burst rate.
So, if you can do fast anims with sustained data rates of 750K per
sec or so…yes. Other wise, no matter what controller…it's just not
possible.
Don
You will get a speedup; I can't tell you if its going to be 20% because I
don't know what you are getting now. But I have a quantum that was giving
me about 600K/sec. After reformatting, I got 850K/sec.
BTW, you can (and should) use the 2.04 FastFileSystem even if you don't
reformat. You can do this by either removing the file system from the
rigid disk block and using the rom file system, or using installing the
L:FastFileSystem from the 2.04 Install disk if you plan to boot under both
2.0 and 1.3.
andy
Andy:
Sorry to jump in here. But, I'm experiencing a strange problem. I'm running
2.04 from disk and reformatted dh0: on my four partition 105 meg Quantum
HD. Version Check reports that it is running under the new version FFS. I
then tried to format the second partition (DH1:) but the Version check
still reports that I am running the older version. I tried reinstalling the
L:FastFileSystem on dh0: and even the Format command to be sure I didn't
louse something up along the way and tried to format the partion several
times with the same results.
Any ideas?
Bill Perez
San Juan, PR
Nothing springs to mind. What controller are you using ?
andy
Andy:
I am using a C-Limited Autobooting Kronos. Works fine with the Quantum and
drives a LazerXpress printer. I just can't umderstand how the Boot
Partition took the New FFS formatting, while the other one won't.
Everything seems to be running fine, nonetheless.
Bill Perez
San Juan, PR
Andy:
Can you tell me why the system performance (not the HD performace) slows
down considerably when more partitions and hard drives are added to my
A3000/25?
– Whapp!ng from the North Coast Michael
There's some minor overhead for additional drives, as it takes longer for
programs to scan the dos list, and it does take 2 more processes per drive
(filesystem and device) but you should not have much slowdown on 2.04. I
run 6-12 partitions normally.
andy
Andy:
I keep my system set to a 4 color workbench, because it looses so much of
its 'snap' when in 8 or 16. That is the kind of slowdown I'm experiencing
with 5 partitions mounted. I guess I'll just have to reformat to fewer
partitions. Thanks for the information.
– Whapp!ng from the North Coast Michael
Strange; I'm not seeing that kind of thing at all. The FFS only checks
the first partition per drive for a diskchange, so its not that. Have you
tried turning off reselection for all drives ?
andy
Andy:
No, I have reselection turned 'on' for all drives. I'll try turning it off.
What does reselection do?
– Whapp!ng from the North Coast Michael
It allows each drive to get off the bus while processing a command. It
adds some overhead, especially with multiple drives. It's most useful with
something like a tape drive, which takes forever to write a block 🙂
andy
Andy:
That did it. Turning reselection off improved workbench speed dramtically.
Thanks for the help.
– Whapp!ng from the North Coast Michael
Good. I hope Randell gets a chance to check it out, because reselection
should have that much of an effect. (unless something is polling each
partition under a forbid, I suppose)
andy
Andy "how" does one turn off reselection? Where in HDToolbox is this???
-mark=
– via Whap!
Mark:
From HDToolbox, choose "change drive type"
Then choose the drive you want to change by clicking it in the selector
window, then choose "edit old drive type".
That will bring up a new screen that contains a gadget that toggles
reselection on and off (yes/no).
Be sure to save your changes to the drive prior to exiting HDToolBox.
– Whapp!ng from the North Coast Michael
Danger: This will wipe out your partition information! You will have to
reenter it in the partition screen exactly as it was before you did the
operation. Using the Reselect scripts is safer.
andy
On the 2.04 Install disk, there's two scripts that will do it; one called
reselectoff the other called reselecton. I've heard a rumor the
scriptcan't find their subscripts on one of the versions of the 2.04
Install disk, but I believe the subscripts are on the disk.
andy
Andy:
Ignore my "what scripts?" question… your msg to Mark Msaes (#17669)
answered my question 🙂 Thanks,
I vote to award Andy Finkel honorary SYSOP status… any seconds?
– Whapp!ng from the North Coast Michael
Andy, does the HDtoolbox apply to 2091 controllers only? I'm using a
Trumpcard Pro but haven't seen any need or reference to HDtoolbox in this
situation.
Paul
–pt–not seattle– 😉
I don't kn; you'll have to ask IVS. HDtoolbox will work if it supports
the rigid disk block and SCSIDIRECT.
andy
Andy,
Here is a list of version output.
Some of my partitions are using version fs 37.26 others are using 36.102 I
haven't reformatted the dhn: group yet. Is that still the old FFS? Some
people have mentioned seeing a pre-2.0 message from version, I'm getting an
older version number. Does this make sense?
AM-100a:Tele/Whap 2> version amax:
fs 37.26
AM-100a:Tele/Whap 2> version dhr:
fs 37.26
AM-100a:Tele/Whap 2> version dhr1:
fs 37.26
AM-100a:Tele/Whap 2> version dh0:
ffs 36.102
AM-100a:Tele/Whap 2> version dh1:
ffs 36.102
AM-100a:Tele/Whap 2> version dh2:
ffs 36.102
AM-100a:Tele/Whap 2> version dh3:
ffs 36.102
Guess I'd better reformat the rest of these partitions.
Chris
Chris,
Actually, if you're getting a 36.xxx number on a disk, it means you still
have the drives config'd to use L:FastFileSystem, instead of the ROM
filesystem.
You don't need to reformat those partitions to upgrade; that is the number
of the 1.3 compatible version of the 2.04 fastfilesystem, which we shipped
on the Install disk.
If you don't intend to boot under 1.3, you probably should remove it from
the rigid disk block.
But you don't need to reformat; the organization of 36.102 is compatible
with 37.26.
andy *s
Andy, The drive that is partitioned and using the 1.3 compatible version of
the 2.04 fastfilesystem does not support the rigid disk block. It is a CLtd
KRONOS controlled PRIAM ST-506 108MB drive. So I guess I'm doing what's
right for it and should leave it be? I never touched the drive since
installing 2.04 on my A2000, except two of the smaller partitons that I
backed up, formatted and restored from tape to defragment the partitions.
Chris
Yes, its probably fine.
andy
Since gettting 2.0 I've done a DOS reformat of my GVP AT hard drive (off
the 030 board) and of a Ricoh removable off GVP's ImpactII SCSI controller.
Is there a quick and dirty way to verify that a drive is using the new FFS?
— Art
use the version command on the device name, ie version dh2:
If it comes back 37.26 or so, then the new FFS is handling your hard drive.
andy
Can you give me the straight dope on Reselection.
First does the reselection status of the boot disk over ride the
reslection status of other HD's on the bus? If the boot disk has
reselection on do all the other devices "have reselection on" no
matter what HDTOOLBOX says about the reselection status of these
other drives? This is what I've heard from a number of sources.
Does setting the reselection status of any or all bus devices slow
down things appreciably? If so what are the benefits to having
reselection turned on?
Can you suggest what the reselection status of each of the devices on
my SCSI bus should be? I have the following configuration.
A3000T with 18Meg RAM 200M Connor SCSI drive (This is the boot disk
and reselection is currently on) 44M Syquest drive (Reselection is
currently off on all my cartridges) Archive Viper Tape drive
Finally, does one have to reformat media under 2.04 if the FFS can be
installed without mucking up the drive's contents? I have installed
the new FFS on all my Syquest cartridges formatted under 1.3 but have
not reformatted them using the 2.04 format command.
Many thanks in advance for your assist. Regards Charles
Every drive decides for itself (via the setting in Hdtoolbox) whether it is
going to do reselection. However, if one drive is going to be doing
reselection, then there are reselection messages going across the scsi bus;
a controller with a bug in its reselection code could become confused, and
cause the SCSI bus to lock up. So basically, you should either keep
reselection on for all drives or off for all drives.
Reselection does cause some additional overhead, so things will slow down a
bit as more messages need to be passed around.
For some reason, reselection gives everyone trouble; so there are a fair
number of bugs in the reselection code of both drives and host adapters.
You should turn reselection off on all your drives if you are using
Syquest, unless you know for sure that your Syquests have the rom revision
that supports reselection properly. Syquest had as much trouble as C=
getting reselection right 🙂
The advantage of backing up, reformatting, and restoring is that the new
FFS does a better job in layout of the files and blocks on the disk.
You'll have less fragmentation in the future, and access will be sped up
now.
andy
Many thanks for the assistance.
> cause the SCSI bus to lock up. So basically, you should either keep >
reselection on for all drives or off for all drives.
So I should turn turn on reselection on my Syquest cartridges. I have done
so on a few of them and have not had any problems. Btw, I have the latest
Syquest ROMs (F5L).
> The advantage of backing up, reformatting, and restoring is that the new
> FFS does a better job in layout of the files and blocks on the disk. >
You'll have less fragmentation in the future, and access will be sped up >
now.
So you should reformat the disk even if you can install the new FFS on your
HD non-destructively via something like HDToolBox?
Joe –
Try removing/renaming the fastfilesystem file from L:. I would wager
that if you're not using the ROM version things'll stop working 8^). Make
sure you have a disk you can boot and access your hardrives from before you
try this, though.
Harry
Joe,
Just type VERSION (drivename:), for instance VERSION DH0: or VERSION WORK:.
That will tell you the version you're running. Version 34.xx is the 1.3
FFS, version 36.xx is the disk-based FFS included with 2.04, and version
37.xx is the ROM ffs in 2.04.
Denny,
I just tried the version command on my HD and got 37.26 as the result.
This disk was not formatted under 2.04 so I'm a little bit confused. How
can I be using the 2.04 ROM FFS when the drive was formatted with the 1.3
FFS?
Dennis – via Whap!
Dennis,
That Version command just tells you whether the FFS being RUN IN MEMORY is
the 2.04 ROM one or not–it doesn't tell you what you formatted the disk
under.
Denny,
Thanks. I got the impression from the Getting Started booklet that you
had to have the special 1.3 compatible handler if you had formatted under
1.3. I have since deleted it, and everything still works, so I guess that's
not the case. 🙂
Dennis – via Whap!
Denny,
That's interesting since I've reformated some of my drives, and
other I haven't reformated yet. Those that I've reformated show up under
version as fs 37.26 while those I've not yet reformatted show up as
"Warning: pre-2.0 filesystem"
Don
So, in order to see the performance gains that 2.04's FFS offers, I need to
have formatted it under 2.04 FFS. Very confusing. So if I do a VERSION
DH0: and it says 2.04 I could still be running off of a 1.3 formatted hard
drive.
I guess since I did not see any speed increase in my drive partition after
reformatting – I am still running under the old 1.3 FFS. (Even though I
deleted the FASTFILESYSTEM.DEVICE file.)
Denny, then why would I get a message 'Warning – pre-2.0 filesystem' when I
use the VERSION command (version DH0:)? I have 2.0 in ROM. The drives
were originally formatted under 1.3 though.
Since my 'in-memory' version of FFS must be a 2.0 version, I'd wonder why
it was telling me it wasn't then…. thoughts?
–jp–seattle–
version tells you what filesystem is handling the drive. It's possible to
have multiple filesystems running at the same time. The rigid disk block
of a hard drive can contain a filesystem. You might check there, to see if
that's where its pulling the old filesystem from.
There's two parts to the improved speed thing; one is the filesystem
itself. The other is the way the filesystem organizes the data on the
disk. The new 2.04 filesystem does a better job than the 1.3 filesystem.
This is why you get a performance improvement by reformatting using the
2.04 filesystem.
andy
How would one check the rigid disk block of a hard drive? Are there
utilies such as Norton's Tools for this ?
For the 2091 or the A3000 Commodore supplies a utility called HDtoolbox.
Microbotics supplies one for the Hardframe. GVP supplies one for their
drive. Generally, the drive mfgr supplies the utility. If the drive
completely supports the rigid disk block standard and SCSI DIRECT commands,
then Hdtoolbox can be used, because it does allow you to specify devices
other than scsi.device. You might also check through the utilities
supplied to you with your controller and see if you have an equivilent
already.
andy *s
I just tried Version, and on Workbench it gave me 37.67, and on Kickstart
it gave me 37.175. I got the Kickstart install disks with my machine also,
so do I have Roms or not? I have had my machine for about 4 weeks, after
months of being on backorder.
– Well Whap! Me Silly….