[sldev] Please take VFS vs OS FS discussion offlist (Re: Reformatting Textures for the cache)

[Rob Lanphier]

Hi all 

This is an interesting example of why directing to wiki.secondlife.com
is entirely appropriate.

I thought about directing you to the texture cache page, but then
thought that maybe the VFS page was more appropriate.  Check this out:
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/VFS

Right on the top of the page is a link to a forum discussion two months
ago.  However, feel free to discuss it again here:
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Talk:VFS

If you have any objections to the guidelines I posted, please direct
them here:
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Talk:SLDev

If there is a specific developer with eminent plans to write code who is
undecided about this issue, please let me know.  That would be the only
reason to keep this discussion going on list.

Rob

On 3/26/07 5:12 PM, Laurent Laborde wrote:
> On 3/27/07, David Baker <david_baker at iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> I couldn't disagree more.  In redesigning the cache system we must
>> presume
>> that the user we are writing for is running a hugely fragmented FAT32
>> drive
>> and a file open in a 10,000 file directory will take 10,000 times longer
>> than a file open in a 1 file directory (so maybe I exaggerate).
>>
>> Sorry to burst your bubble, but MacOS, Linux, BSD and all the rest
>> are tiny
>> minority operating systems compared to Windows XP.  And will NTFS
>> might be
>> better than FAT32 for performance, Windows XP doesn't even encourage
>> users
>> to use it - FAT32 and NTFS are presented as equal options - so we
>> have to
>> presume that maybe 40-50% of SL users will be running FAT32. 
>> Consequently
>> any option that is non-optimal for FAT32 should be seen as a
>> non-starter -
>> which I suspect includes most direct file system options.
>>
>> If we want to rely on file system functionality we are going to have
>> to look
>> at file-system-in-a-file solutions - perhaps using something third party
>> rather than dusting off the VFS - but not relying on direct file system
>> storage unless we can prove that that is the best option _on FAT32_.
>
> So your suggestion is to optimize for old system, knowing that this
> optimization will probably slowdown any decent computer ?
> And using a big file won't help fragmentation at all (it's not
> uncommon, even on NTFS, to see a big file fragmented in thousands
> parts).
>
> I'm not sure what the best :
> 1) lot of small file everywhere on the disk.
> vs
> 2) a huge fragmented file.
>
> For me, the option 2 look obviously better than 1.
>
>
>> Windows XP doesn't even encourage users
>> to use it - FAT32 and NTFS are presented as equal options - so we
>> have to
>> presume that maybe 40-50% of SL users will be running FAT32.
>
> I don't think so !
> All preinstalled XP (OEM) are NTFS.
> The default option IS NTFS.
> Microsoft encourage NTFS ! Even on the good(hum) old(sure) Win2k !
>


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20070326/027187d9/signature.pgp