Hi all, > On Sep 9, 2020, at 5:17 AM, Baltissen, GJPAA (Ruud) <ruud.baltissen_at_apg.nl> wrote: > > [...] > > The idea was to develop my own file system that could handle more than 16 MB, the max the original FS could handle, but then came 1541Ultimax, SD2IEC and various other HDD platforms and interest of other people disappeared: in the last four years I only got one request for information. I'd quite like to learn which approach you chose for overcoming the size limitation. CMD, for example, went with an approach that was basically "255 of a 16 MiB Commodore-like filesystem, each in its own partition" - I'd guess in order to maintain compatibility, which was critically important back then because they needed it to be _saleable_, not just effective. In their shoes, I'd have likely done much the same. Now, 30 years later, we all know just how absurdly large the "smallest storage medium on the market" becomes every year. Knowing that, I'd feel obligated to put a lot more emphasis on capacity. I could say a lot about what decisions _I_ would make for such a project, and why - I've had similar topics at the back of my mind for over 25 years, ever since I noticed a similar class of inherent limitations that afflicted Apple's HFS. (Apple's own replacement preëmpted mine, but there are still changes I'd make... many of which are also relevant to a Commodore 8-bit filesystem, considering the nature of SSDs & other current storage media.) What design decisions did _you_ make a decade ago, and why? I'm very eager to hear your thoughts on the subject. > And having a lot of (read: too much) other interesting projects, I stopped further development. That sounds familiar! *grin* Gordon "gsteemso" Steemson Instigating cat-wrangler for the Seattle Retro-Computing SocietyReceived on 2020-09-09 16:00:02
Archive generated by hypermail 2.3.0.