On Oct 23, 4:49 pm, Hein RMS van den Heuvel
wrote:
> On Oct 23, 4:27 pm, AEF wrote:
> :
>
> > I will primarily have just one large file on this disk at any given
> :
> > disk? (For those of you who are too young to remember, these disks are
> > 2 GB in size. Or more accurately: 4110480 TOTAL BLOCKS.)
>
> I'm old enough... 7200 rpm, narrow scsi, big then, very small now.
> You are better of with a $99 500GB USB drive if you can hook that up!
>
> > OK, so I was thinking of large value for /CLUSTER.
>
> Yeah sure... like 512.
>
> > large value for /EXTEND, maybe 10000
>
> Certainly, line 64000

Wait a minute. Doesn't this mean that the extend value would be
512*64000=32768000 blocks? This is larger than the disk.

Maybe I should leave the EXTENSION value at its default of 5 and
specify a huge cluster size of 10000, 20000, or 40000 (has to be .LE.
the size of the disk, which is 4110480 blocks).

BTW, the File Applications manual says that a cluster may or may not
be contiguous. I assume this means that a cluster may or may not span
two adjacent tracks, no?

>
> > small value for /HEADERS
> Sure... 100?

On further though, I may as well leave it at its default of 16.

> > medium value for /MAXIMUM_FILES
>
> Sure... 1000?

Someone pointed out that the index file bitmap contains one bit per
file header so that I may as well use 4096. It shouldn't really matter
much.

>
> And maybe add /INDEX=BEG

OK.

The qualifier /INDEX=BEGINNING means the outermost cylinders, right?
Just curious.

>
> > What do y'all think? Is it even worth bothering with?
>
> I would, but I would not expect much from it other then no longer
> having the think whether I should have tweaked it some. :-). Piece of
> mind.

Well, I think the EXTENSION value (measured in blocks) is important,
at least.

>
> Hein.

Thanks!

AEF