Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion
My opinions on release 3.0
bluebrother:
--- Quote from: TAC109 on July 17, 2008, 10:16:47 PM ---The FAT32 file system that Rockbox uses gets very inefficient with large numbers of files in directories.
--- End quote ---
If you know how FAT works you know that this is simply not true. FAT works as simply linked list, and this doesn't make having lots of entries unefficient, especially not lots of entries in a single folder.
TAC109:
--- Quote from: bluebrother on July 18, 2008, 01:24:44 AM ---
--- Quote from: TAC109 on July 17, 2008, 10:16:47 PM ---The FAT32 file system that Rockbox uses gets very inefficient with large numbers of files in directories.
--- End quote ---
If you know how FAT works you know that this is simply not true. FAT works as simply linked list, and this doesn't make having lots of entries unefficient, especially not lots of entries in a single folder.
--- End quote ---
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. "Simple linked lists" are not efficient with "enormous folders". To find a file, on average half the list has to be searched serially. If the directory is fragmented this will require multiple random disk accesses. It is simply not efficient.
soap: The poster I was replying to has all his files in an "enormous folder", rather than subfolders in a folder.
Strife89:
--- Quote from: TAC109 on July 18, 2008, 08:24:01 PM ---If the directory is fragmented this will require multiple random disk accesses. It is simply not efficient.
--- End quote ---
That reminds me of something I've been pondering. Short of transferring the files one by one, is it possible to force any OS (Windows or Linux) to copy files to their destination in alphabetical order, rather than in the order stored on the source disk?
--- Quote from: TAC109 on July 18, 2008, 08:24:01 PM ---The poster I was replying to has all his files in an "enormous folder", rather than subfolders in a folder.
--- End quote ---
While I have intentions of changing that, it's going to be a ridiculous task to create the folders, unless I can find a tool to help me. ALL of my .MP3 files are named "<artist name> - <song title>". My intentions are to create folders called <artist name>.
If I beat someone to finding such a tool ;) , I'll put it on the UsefulTools Wiki page (and drop a note here).
obo:
--- Quote from: Strife89 on July 19, 2008, 12:25:15 PM ---While I have intentions of changing that, it's going to be a ridiculous task to create the folders, unless I can find a tool to help me. ALL of my .MP3 files are named "<artist name> - <song title>". My intentions are to create folders called <artist name>.
If I beat someone to finding such a tool ;) , I'll put it on the UsefulTools Wiki page (and drop a note here).
--- End quote ---
There are already a few programs to do that on the UsefulTools page (under MP3 Tagging & Organization) - EasyTag and Musicbrainz spring to mind.
soap:
--- Quote from: TAC109 on July 18, 2008, 08:24:01 PM ---I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. "Simple linked lists" are not efficient with "enormous folders". To find a file, on average half the list has to be searched serially. If the directory is fragmented this will require multiple random disk accesses. It is simply not efficient.
--- End quote ---
And Rockbox can cache the directory listings/content. This is not the problem the complainer appears to be having.
--- Quote ---soap: The poster I was replying to has all his files in an "enormous folder", rather than subfolders in a folder.
--- End quote ---
I believe Items = Items unless you care to explain otherwise.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version