jrVVULsA+jAKzvDiH028i8NpAxmNMeExUqaAKeWpGv5+SH0YZxJRxLH83QL/PfH/
SskXOVl6tAuO/hsv1/1h/K3GrP4gdJuHxZBdiiyPVkx3bOrQJQExZ562VTTOb/v1
EGag7BgDGIbeQ==
s2.utilities:116 comp.os.os2.misc:3011
From: "Allan"
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:13:35 UTC, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> > Anyway, current HPFS formatting is dead slow, so a better version
> > would surely be nice.
> >
>
> It may be that that's as fast as it is possible to format an HPFS
> volume. I don't remember it being particularly slow.
Just try a 'LONG' format aka full format of the partition.
This takes maybe 10x longer for HPFS than FAT. IBM-JFS has the same
'bug' - but fortunately we got that fixed in eCS version just before GA.
> (It has been a
> long time since I had to format an HPFS volume.) I don't know how much
> has to be done to high-level format an HPFS volume, since I haven't
> written the code to do that, yet. It's probably a little more than to
> high-level format a FAT volume (which pretty much only involves writing
> 3 things: a BPB, the FATs, and the root directory). There are a few
> more data structures to write with HPFS, and they are a little more
> evenly spread throughout a volume. But off the top of my head I cannot
> think of a reason why high-level formatting FAT and HPFS should be
> greatly different from each other as far as execution times are
> concerned. From what I remember when, years ago, I last formatted HPFS
> disc volumes, they weren't.
'Short' formatting is pretty much ok, so I guess thats what you did. Sometimes
however I do prefere to cleanup a partition completely.
--
Allan.
It is better to close your mouth, and look like a fool,
than to open it, and remove all doubt.
--- Internet Rex 2.31
* Origin: Datemas.de http://www.news.datemas.de (1:261/20.999)
|
