Some senseless babbling from Jack Stein to Mike Ruskai
on 10-28-99  17:40 about File Systems...

 JS> Mike Ruskai wrote in a message to Jack Stein:
 
 AR>While I can think of a lot of reasons to use HPFS rather than FAT, I
 >can not think of any good reason to use FAT rather than HPFS.
 JS> 
 JS> uses.  If I recall correctly, HPFS generally takes about 7 megs of
 JS> space for whatever it is doing, I don't know what FAT uses, but to me,
 JS> that would be the only issue.   

 
 MR> So, for a 100MB ZIP disk, HPFS would be using about the
 MR> following: 
 
 MR> 1,021,605 bytes for the directory band
 MR>    26,624 bytes for freespace bitmaps
 MR>    51,200 bytes for hotfix sectors
 MR>    10,240 bytes for structures at beginning
 MR>     4,096 bytes for bitmap and hotfix lists
 MR> ----------
 MR> 1,113,765 bytes total

 JS> Thanks Mike, that was a lot of good and interesting info I don't
 JS> believe I've seen before.  A definite save to my HPFS.txt file.

Pretty much all of it is available at http://www.edm2.com/

Under the Meta index, click on OS/2, then page down a couple times until
you see six articles on HPFS.  That was my primary source of information.

Of course, the above number doesn't account for the area that HPFS seems to
just lose, which going by what Murray wrote, is still 4096 sectors for a
ZIP disk.  Even a 10MB HPFS drive (I made two 10MB primary HPFS drives to see
how the partition table would look) has 443 free but unreachable sectors
(an odd number).

And keep in mind that the directory band figure is an approximation.  I've
not yet found any absolute formula to calculate its size.

Mike Ruskai
thannymeister@yahoo.com


... Almost everything in life is easier to get into than out of.

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v3.0pr2
633/260
2501/209