Re: [NTLK] 32MB cards

From: Paul Guyot (pguyot_at_kallisys.net)
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 - 23:42:17 EST


Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:30:22 -0500
From: Laurent Daudelin <nemesys_at_cox.rr.com>

> > This leads to another question.
> > Would be NOS able to address and properly save/retrieve info on a 256MB
> > memory card?
>
>Probably not. I think that Paul Guyot already mentioned that the limit is
>64MB, so ATA cards larger than that would appear as multiple cards/stores on
>your Newton.

On the contrary, I think it would be capable of handling it.
Basically because storage cards are used as transactional persistent
object stores, and objects on these stores have IDs on 32 bits, and
allocation of these IDs are left to my discretion.
Currently, the 27 first bits design the sector number within the
store partition and the last 5 bits design the ID of the object. So
you can have up to 2^27 sectors (+ metadata sectors) by partition.

Now that I think about it, the main problem will be when the NS
interface will try to compute the total size and the used size.
AFAIR, there is a NS function getting these values directly from the
store object, and then it is divided in a NS function by 1024 to get
KBs. Since NS integers are signed 30 bits, the limit there is 512 MB.
So I'll put such a limit in the full-version partition dialog.

Partitioning was introduced for two reasons. First, I did not know
then if there was a limit somewhere and what this limit was. I am
still not sure that there is no limit below 512 MB, although I can't
see why there would be one.
Second, I thought that NewtonOS would prefer to not have too many
packages activated, and having several partitions that you can mount
and unmount will probably help.

Paul

-- 
Home page: http://www.kallisys.com/
Newton-powered WebServer: http://newt.dyndns.org:8080/

-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 10:02:41 EST