Rockbox mail archive

• Next message: Paul van der Heu: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Previous message: Christophe Avoinne: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• In reply to: Christophe Avoinne: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Next in thread: Linus Nielsen Feltzing: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Christophe Avoinne wrote:
> Huh, I'm not sure having two FATs is so safe indeed.
[...]
> how could you determine which FAT is good ?

I agree. I haven't seen any disk check program do anything useful if it notices the two FATs differ. They tend to just ask the user which one to use...

> I did format with only
> one FAT per partition, but I got in trouble when I wanted to defragment this
> partition because the software under Windows wants two FATs to do so

Yes. Microsoft recommends using two FATs precisely for this reason. Many programs (and even operating systems) only work with two FATs.

> In fact, I'm just wondering whether that safity is valuable comparing with
> the fact that your harddisk will spin up twice to update two FATs because
> the second one would be to far away from the first one to be entirely cached
> in the HD buffer during the first access.

We update the two FATs at the same time. So the only extra effort is moving the write head a few tracks. Definitely unmeasurable power impact.

-- 
Björn

• Next message: Paul van der Heu: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Previous message: Christophe Avoinne: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• In reply to: Christophe Avoinne: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Next in thread: Linus Nielsen Feltzing: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]