> Question: How long does it take to copy 1.0 MB of data onto a 3" floppy
> disk?
>
> Answer: I gave up after waiting about 25 minutes.
>
>
>
> Of course, actually formatting the whole disk only takes about 30
> seconds, so there's no way copying the data to it should take that long.
> Is there?
>
> Well, in this instance, there is. You see, for whatever reason, there's
> an issue with putting many small files onto such a disk. I don't know
> whether the issue is with the file system design or just the OS
> implementation,

It's FAT's fault.  This has nothing to do with the OS.

> but it appears that every file creation operation
> involves writing the file's data to one block, and updating the file
> listing in another block. The result is that if you create many hundred
> tiny files, the [extremely slow] R/W heads spend forever repeatedly
> tracking back and forth, once per file. In this instance, copy time is
> proportional to the /number/ of files, not their /size/.
>
> Quite why Windows can't just write the final listing to the directory
> block and then write all the file data blocks sequentially is beyond me,
> but anyway...

What happens if the power goes out in the middle of the operation and 
the file allocation table has already been written, but the actual data 
has not been copied over?  This is why you have to update the FAT 
everytime you use a block, and the directory everytime you write a file.

This is one of the earlier forms of transaction tracking.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message