Re: HFS Utils?

[jlwalter@primenet.com (Joe Walters)]

In article <sheldon-2401972138110001@lpm4-3.atlcom.net>,
Sheldon Simms <sheldon@atlcom.net> wrote:

> I ask because I dug out my "Inside Mac: Files" when this thread
> began and read up on the HFS format. It seems to me that
> optimization is unlikely to help very much because the way that the
> ProDOS File System and by inheritance, GS/OS, finds files on the
> disk is not well suited to the HFS format.

FWIW.

I did some testing of for Devin Reade's newest version of nulib. One
thing he wanted tested was whether Shrinkit could unpack a large
number of files from an archive.

To test this I wrote a shell script that created tiny files to the
depth and width specified in the calling line. Generally there were
2,000 files in the tree, sometimes deep and sometimes wide e.g., eight
wide with 500 per subdirectory or 10 deep with 100 or some such at
each dive down the tree.

They all unpacked fine on my IIgs and when repacked by Shrinkit and
uploaded to my ISP and unpacked by nulib compared identical to the
original.

All of the above to say that when I worked with a HFS volume things
went faster by a significant amount for unpacking, packing and
deletion by the finder. I don't have the numbers at hand right now,
however, they are buried in my mail archives if it is crucial for
someone to know.

The deletion by the finder of the deep test was much worse than
watching grass grow :-)

Kind Regards,



--
	Joe Walters:  bird@mcs.net
	To know and not to do is to not yet know