Re: hfs support for blocksize != 512

From: Alexander Viro (
Date: Thu Aug 31 2000 - 16:11:11 EST

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, J. Dow wrote:

> > being a jaded bastard I suspect that Commodore PHBs decided to save a
> > bit on floppy controller price and did it well after the initial design
> Comododo PHBs had nothing to do with it. And the Commododo floppy
> disk format is quite literally unreadable with a PC style controller. It was
> not an economic decision. If you are going to carp please do so from a
> basis of real knowledge Alexander. (The REAL blame for the disk fiasco
> goes to the people at Metacrap^H^H^H^HComCo.)

Hey, I've clearly said that I don't know which idiot was responsible for
that fsckup.

> > was done and so close to release that redesign was impossible for
> > schedule reasons, but it might be something else. We'll probably never
> > know unless somebody who had been in the original design team will leak
> > it. But whatever reasons were behind that decision, OFS was either blindly
> > copied without a single thought about very serious design factor _or_
> > had been crippled at some point before the release. If it's the latter - I
> > commiserate with their fs folks. If it's the former... well, I think that
> > it says quite a few things about their clue level.
> Metacomco designed it based on their TripOS. OFS is very good for
> repairing the filesystem in the event of a problem, although the so called
> DiskDoctor they provided quickly earned the name DiskDestroyer.
> Metacomco and BSTRINGS and BPOINTERS and all that nonsense
> entered the picture when it was decided the originally planned OS was
> would take too long to develop. So what Metacomco had was grafted
> onto what the old Amiga Inc had done resulting in a hodgepodge
> mess.

        Umm... Interesting. Could somebody familiar with TripOS tell what
size sectors had there? IOW, did it keep the metadata out-of-band or not?


> old cruft is preserved for reading old disks. Later on DirCache was added
> principly for floppy disks. About that time Randall added both so called
> soft links and hard links. For what it is worth it took a long long time and
> series of modifications before either of them worked adequately.

        Egads... Please, pass him my compliments - one has to be _really_
perverted to do the hardlinks that way. Even QNX way of handling that
(move them into magical place after the first rename()/link() and leave
the dud in the old place) is much saner.

> > And let's not go into the links to directories, implemented well
> > after it became painfully obvious that they were an invitation for
> > troubles (from looking into Amiga newsgroups it seems that miracle
> > didn't happen - I've seen quite a few complaints about fs breakage
> > answered with "don't use links to directories, they are broken").
> They MAY be fixed in the OS3.5 BoingBag 2 (service pack 2 with a
> cutsiepie name.) Heinz has committed yet another rewrite.

        Ouch... Why did he do them (links to directories, that is), in the
first place?

> > Anyway, it's all history. We can't unroll the kludge, no matter
> > what we do. We've got what we've got. And I'm not too interested in
> > distribution of the blame between the people in team that seems to be
> > dissolved years ago. I consider AFFS we have to deal with as a poor excuse
> > of design and I think that it gives more than enough reasons for that.
> > In alternative history it might be better. So might many other things.
> Indeed, poor or not it exists and we live with it in the Amiga community.
> (Um, I wonder if I could talk Hendrix into a copy of the source for SFS so
> it could be ported to Linux.... These days I prefer it to FFS. {^_-})

        Hmm... What, format description is not available?

> If you want I can bend your ear on things Amiga for longer than your
> patience stretches, I suspect. (I've been following the threads discussions

        alt.folklore.computers is -> that way ;-) Let's take it there...

> because there is a project I'd like to port from NT to Linux that just ain't
> gonna make it until some nice threads are added and latencies drop
> dramatically. RT_Linux may be overkill. But as it sits today Linux is
> underkill when you need 1/4 frame and less timing latencies on Show
> Control operations. <petasigh>)

ObWTF: WTF did these guys drop QNX when they clearly wanted RTOS? Do they
have somebody who
        a) knew the difference between RT and TS and
        b) knew that Linux is TS?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:28 EST