Re: Partioning SCSI drives larger than 130 Megs?

[someone@wavetech.net (Greg Buchner)]

In article <5NOV199808462667@vax2.concordia.ca>, spec@vax2.concordia.ca
(Mitchell Spector) wrote:

>    I'll bet the new HFS+ has a similar feature. I'm not up
>to date on the latest Macintosh developments though, so I'm
>not sure. Anyone here know?

Yep, I had (Seagate currently has it back under warranty) an
8.5GB (formatted) HD hooked up to my Mac with two partitions,
one 2GB and the other 6.5GB.  Formatted with HFS+, the default
block size was 4K.  Probably the same as you mentioned for
Windows 95 (OSR2).  There are some programs out there for the
Mac that would allow me to use any block size from 512bytes on
up, but the default works good enough.  And it's much, much
better than the 136.5K allocations blocks that were used under
HFS when it was 1 partition.  Talk about wasted space.

Meanwhile, I noticed that over Appletalk, GS/OS showed there
constantly being 2GB free on the 6.5GB partition when there
was as much as 4GB free.  But my IIGS had no problem writing
to the HFS+ partitions over Appletalk, but this was sort of
expected.  Didn't even think about it the first time time I
accessed HFS+ through my GS.

I also do use an HFS partition on my IIGS's hard drive, but
it's only a 120MB HD with two 30MB ProDOS partitions and the
rest as HFS.  Have only generally dealt with smaller HFS
partitions on the GS, 70MB max and quite often Syquest carts
(44MB variety) formatted as HFS.  Haven't ever had a problem,
but that's probably because I deal with the smaller partitions.

Now, I would definitely agree that HFS is slow, especially on
the writing part...get's annoying at times but I find having
three partitions show up already is more annoying.

Greg B.

-- 
Note:  To e-mail me, replace someone with gjb
I don't get junk e-mail and intend to keep it that way.
If you want to send me spam, go jump off a cliff and make
the world a nice place.