File System(s) On The Gp2x

[Cyclops]

I noticed on some (possible fake) screenshots the use of ext3.the GP32 used FAT 12/16 which apart from being very wastful, esp for small files like the kind I liked to use on the GP32, had agony or renaming files to 8.3. I not only want a 1Gb card I want to get 1Gb out of it not 800MB. For instance would it be sensible to use ReiserFS V4(no wasted space, and a compression plug-in), stability would not be important.

Two non questions:

1) what is the files system(or systems) on the GPX2. Or if many whats the most appropriate.

2) what is the file system on the PSP.(Just out of interest).

 

[ratx]

I imagine it is within the realms of possibility if a module can be used to support it under the native linux shipped on the unit... anyone know if the kernel has module support? or is everything hardcoded in to the kernel?

The PSP FS is fat. ( did you know you can change the block size on SMC's to increase the efficiency of storing lots of small files? )

cheers!

 

[DijiTao]

ReiserFS V4 would be neat - but really ext3 gets the job done just fine. Either of thoese would work for me, I just hope they don't use something god awful like FAT.

So does anybody know the answer to the question?

 

[Squidge]

FAT, VFAT (FAT will LFN support), EXT2, EXT3 are currently supported by the Kernel, although if GPH decide to support only one in the front-end interface, they'll probably go for VFAT, as it's more universal.

 

[ratx]

Cool. What about loadable modules?

 

[fragment]

Just a guess, but probably a filesystem designed for flash is used for the internal storage.. like JFFS2.

 

[Squidge]

Just a guess, but probably a filesystem designed for flash is used for the internal storage.. like JFFS2.

​

Give this person a gold star

 

[ratx]

The "Leaked" screenshots gave that much away Squidge!

 

[haplo]

Since it's nativley running linux I think fat on the nand ram would be appaling for both the 8.3 limitations and the lack of privleges and the waste of space. So it'll probably be ext3 or reiserfs v3. But it will obviously have to support vfat for sdcards that want to talk to windows. But if you're only using linux, does anyone know if you can format a sd card to ext3 or reiserfs?

 

[ratx]

Yep you can. I have SD cards with ext3 and fat32 filesystems on different partitions.

 

[sparr]

My brand new Mk 2 firmware 2.0 won't display any files on a JFFS, JFFS2, YAFFS, or ext2 SD card. The only FS i have gotten to work is plain old vfat/fat32. Help?

 

[DJWillis]

My brand new Mk 2 firmware 2.0 won't display any files on a JFFS, JFFS2, YAFFS, or ext2 SD card. The only FS i have gotten to work is plain old vfat/fat32. Help?

You know you have to mount up other FS's by hand dont you, the GUI and automount default to VFAT (well I assume it's still the same in 2.0, not checked)

 

[nickspoon]

You won't get 1GB out of a 1GB SD card, simply because that's how marking works.

 

[Shikkers]

You won't get 1GB out of a 1GB SD card, simply because that's how marking works.

If you buy a 300 GB hard drive, you get a 276.14...GB hard drive. They just put 300,000,000,000 bytes on it, not 325,912,185,600....

Same thing, except the DRM software on SD cards also take up space.

 

[sparr]

If you buy a 300 GB hard drive, you get a 276.14...GB hard drive. They just put 300,000,000,000 bytes on it, not 325,912,185,600....

If you buy a 300 GB hard drive, you get a 300 GB hard drive, and 300 GB happens to equal 276 GiB. It isnt my fault, or the hard drive manufacturers, that you continue to propagate a defective naming scheme thought up by programmers in the 70s who thought 2.4% was an acceptable imprecision in calling 1024 "1k".

You will find that many markets other than HD storage use the proper terms. Most other kinds of storage, including flash and disc based media, use the right terms.

 

[Shikkers]

If you buy a 300 GB hard drive, you get a 276.14...GB hard drive. They just put 300,000,000,000 bytes on it, not 325,912,185,600....

If you buy a 300 GB hard drive, you get a 300 GB hard drive, and 300 GB happens to equal 276 GiB. It isnt my fault, or the hard drive manufacturers, that you continue to propagate a defective naming scheme thought up by programmers in the 70s who thought 2.4% was an acceptable imprecision in calling 1024 "1k".

You will find that many markets other than HD storage use the proper terms. Most other kinds of storage, including flash and disc based media, use the right terms.

Actually YOUR terms are defective, it's just easier for YOU to use 10s because everyone can multiply/divide by 10s. The reason it is displayed using 1024 scale is because of something I like to call memory locations: 1 GB of memory? Oh, it's 40000000xah wide. "Programmers in the 70s," actually we still use hex/binary today, programmers both old and new (REAL programmers that know assembly :rolleyes: )

 

[michaeljustman]

It's 1024, because 1024 == 2^10 . Everyone should know that. It makes sense because computers count in binary not our silly decimal.

(Personally I think that we should use a Base-12 system, because it factors well, but it would be hard to make the switch.)

 

[atomicthumbs]

DJWillis, wouldn't you just have to edit the fstab file to change the default mount FS?

 

[sparr]

Who cares how the computers count? If you want to make that argument then we should count in units of 2^8 or 2^16, far more binary-hardware-friendly quantities than 2^10. The size of storage is dictated by physical properties of the media. Hard drive clusters might come in sets of 6 for a certain sized platter, so do we call 6^4 "1k" because 1296 is close enough to 1000? No, we dont, because k means 1000. Always has, always will. M means 1000000. G means 1000000000. And so on.

 

[michaeljustman]

1024 is the closest power of two to 1000, and it was often misused such that it became the norm to refer to a kilobyte as 1024 bytes.

Although, I was incorrect in saying that 2^10 was easier for the computer to count. (1 byte + 2 bits is far from efficient use).