OS/2, eCS & ArcaOS - Technical > Storage
HPFS and JFS internal definition specifications
Dave Yeo:
@Martin, any HPFS patents should have ran out by now. They're generally for 20 years.
@Rick, don't forget there is a GPL HPFS driver in the Linux kernel.
RickCHodgin:
--- Quote from: Dave Yeo on June 03, 2017, 02:40:12 am ---@Rick, don't forget there is a GPL HPFS driver in the Linux kernel.
--- End quote ---
I'm going over the patent right now, converting it from scanned image pages to text. It's only 329 pages. LOL! At least it's double- and triple-spaced mostly. :-)
Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin
RickCHodgin:
It looks like the best thing for me to do is create my own custom disk format for development of this driver. I can use a type that doesn't presently exist, and then create a driver which is able to access it using my own file system.
Once that is working and OS/2 is able to recognize the information on that disk through the API, an the API is all working correctly, then I can modify the algorithms to access the data on HPFS disks.
I'm really enjoying learning about HPFS. I've always wondered why OS/2 hard disk access patterns sounded notably different than FAT32. Now I know. :-)
Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin
Dave Yeo:
HPFS was one of the big reasons that made OS/2 a better DOS and Windows (3.x). Much faster then FAT.
It's a shame that MS kept HPFS386 and charged a $1000 for a license.
The story was that IBM and MS decided that they would each develop a new file system, written in C and capable of running on a 286 and which ever one was faster would be used. MS wrote HPFS386, won the contest by cheating as usual and IBM had to rewrite the HPFS driver and gave it the small 2MiB cache.
Hopefully you put some thought into the cache, could even use memory above 4GB I guess.
RickCHodgin:
--- Quote from: Dave Yeo on June 04, 2017, 01:26:18 am ---HPFS was one of the big reasons that made OS/2 a better DOS and Windows (3.x). Much faster then FAT.
It's a shame that MS kept HPFS386 and charged a $1000 for a license.
The story was that IBM and MS decided that they would each develop a new file system, written in C and capable of running on a 286 and which ever one was faster would be used. MS wrote HPFS386, won the contest by cheating as usual and IBM had to rewrite the HPFS driver and gave it the small 2MiB cache.
Hopefully you put some thought into the cache, could even use memory above 4GB I guess.
--- End quote ---
I promise you, I'm going to do it right. And, it will be flexible and extensible. I might even like to create a merged HPFS / JFS driver that handles both disk types. But, we'll see.
As I start working on this I'm back to wanting to replace the kernel first. There are significant limitations in trying to write and debug this type of code when you don't have access to the kernel source code. It hampers you immensely.
Ugh.
Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version