SFS or PFS3?

Ok guys, i'm about to blitz my drive and start a clean OS3.9 install. I've just rolled my own custom 3.9 ROMS and i'm having issues with the latest SCSI.Device by Cosmos reading my partitions. the advice from him is to try and reformat it all with HDtoolbox 45.6, (i'd originally used 44.23). He also made me think that I should try PFS3 as SFS has certain issues. But I was under the impression that SFS was more compatible.

I will at some point load OS4.1 Classic (IF/When its available) so i'd like to have 1 partiton for 3.9 (say around 800MB), one for 4.1 (around 2GIG), a swap (for 4.1 if it ever becomes active, or is this never going to happen on IDE?) and finally a big partition for all programs etc (this will be about 70 odd GIG.

So what do you all think? should I stick with SFS and just re-partiton my drive with HDToolbox 45.6, or use PFS3? what are the main pros and cons of them both?

Well, I can only share my experiences with both.

I currently have machines with SFS, and some with PFS3. I have found that they are both VERY reliable with no bug issues to speak of.

I have also found that PFS3 is SLIGHTLY (and I mean SLIGHTLY - you really have to measure it) faster than SFS.

But, SFS is much newer and wide spread, so better supported.

I usually stick to SFS now as I can simply download it from the 'net for free instead of trying to dig out old PFS3 disks. I DO use PFS3 on any 68000 Amiga as there is no 68000 version of SFS.

Hope this info helps.

PFS3 in every instance, though abraXXious is right in everything he says RE convenience. - However:

I hear PFS3 is becoming or already is now Free-ware & whilst it has a steeper learning curve than SFS, I'd suggest given a chap of your capabilities; - Get plugged in & give it a whirl. :thumbsup:

Best Wishes.

Kin

I'll recommend PFS3 any time of the year.

It have a better compatibility with all processors you can use on your Amigas, from the 68000 to PPC.

It is faster (may just for a marginal speed, but still).

It is free now. You only have to dig it out.

Easy, PFS3. No data loss in nearly 10 years of use (including some nasty/unstable configurations), and the direct-SCSI version can be a huge bonus. I've tried SFS a few times over the years, but always went back. If you tinker with Mac emulation, filedisk performance on a PFS3 partition is impressive.

Cheers for the advice Guys :) Looks like I'll try PFS3 then! I have an old issue of AF with it on the coverdisk I think, so i'll dig it out. Am I right, though, in thinking its not compatible with OS 4/4.1? that partition still needs SFS, right? Or should I just leave that one uninitialised until I get OS 4.1 and format it through its installation process?

...Someone needs to check my Dropbox better... PM on the way

HAHA! Aye Marios, i've not noticed PFS3 there :D Thanks man! Is there any difference between yours and the officially released one on the AF disks? Or is yours from that disk too? I thought there was some kind of registration needed even though it is free now.. I'll check it out later :)

Where does one source PFS3 from these days? I'm going to need something impressive for my A4000 setup, and it sounds like PFS3 kicks SFS in the balls. Any help appreciated guys (and apologies for the thread hijack) :-)

Mine is the best.... why?
Because it's mine :) (ROFL!)

Btw Andy my friend you got PM...