Next version of OPL with support for EXT2, EXT3, EXT4 File Type Systems.No more hussle with files bigger than 4GB in size...

[SkyNet]

Guys , we all request to have support for NTFS in OPL. Personnally I do not want NTFS in OPL because I think that NTFS is good only for HDD-Partition with Windows on it.

What I want to ask is this:

Majority of us do use nowadays Linux----it can be Ubuntu, Kubuntu and other Linux types. Also a lot of NAS-devices have support for Linux file systems to be used from the very beggining it is set up.

The question is:

Can OPL have support for Linux Types of File Systems used in Ubuntu, NAS------EXT2, EXT3,EXT4?

For example I format my HDD or USB_PEN_DRIVE in Ubuntu with EXT4, put on it my games which are bigger than 4GB in size and become very happy. What do you think about it?

And also before it was not so easy to use Linux, but after Ubuntu appeared ---Linux became as easy to use as it can actually be.

Also a lot of users do use Ubuntu to compile OPL.

To my opinion it is very "obvious" to have support for EXT2-EXT3-EXT4 in OPL.

Please write what do you think about it?

[yoshi314]

i'd say that ext2 is theoretically possible. the problem is that those filesystems are more complex than fat filesystem, and that might cause technical implementation issues, as the IOP driver could be too large. also, fragmentation checks on those filesystems are more complex. ext* filesystems allocate space on disk for files in different way than fat does.

assumption that game images are not fragmented greatly simplifies current implementation.

imho, adapting ps2hdd layout for usb storage might be a reasonable alternative, if the game list related operations are somehow optimized for the media. otherwise it's better to stick to what we already have.


personally i think SMB is the way to go, as it offers decent performance, it's supported by all recent ps2 models and it is filesystem independent.

[spud42]

Majority of us do use nowadays Linux

i disagree with this totally...... as yoshi said SMB doesn't care what file system you use........

"A Gartner forecast calls for Mac OS to ship on 4.5 percent of new PCs worldwide in 2011 and 5.2 percent in 2012. Gartner does not expect Google Chrome OS, Google Android or HP's webOS to get 'any significant market share' on PCs in the next few years, and expects Linux operating systems to remain at less than 2 percent share over the next several years."

[Bat Rastard]

Dumping FAT for EXT = good way to drive dlanor out of mind.

Or anybody else using MiniGW environments in Windows ...

They don't have to leave Windows to compile OPL let alone save the ELF to their FAT formatted flash drives. Same for those using Linux VMs under Windows. Foisting EXT down their throats over the 4GB limitations of FAT -- when less than maybe 5% of the PS2's vast library of games break that limit via Dual-Layer -- defeats the very purpose of their MiniGW and Linux VM environments: convenience. It also defeats the only saving grace FAT has left: being OS agnostic. Every OS out there can see, read, and write to FAT. Just about every computer can boot FAT formatted USB drives and hit-or-miss with NTFS. Just can't break the 4GB limit with FAT. Whereas FAT is OS agnostic, Samba is both file-system agnostic and OS agnostic. You can use it for file shares whether you're running Windows, Linux, or Mac OS.

Honestly? It's a small miracle that OPL (or any applicable homebrew or commercial PS2 app) supports those USB 1.x ports. Their respective developers knew of the limitations of its USB ports, yet depending on what they intended to achieve with them, still devoted their time stringing the code together. CMX's work on Codebreaker? Floundered with version 7 and 8 in terms of USB device detection yet seems to boot consistently on fatty and slim PS2s. The opposite with version 9. The speed of USB 1.x for the features CB supported were excellent as CB was never meant for constantly streaming data. For OPL and PS2ESDL (i.e. streaming constant data) I gotta give 'em credit -- sprinkling parsley and powdered sugar over a pile of dogshit doesn't change the fact that it's still dogshit. Yet that's the extent of what any homebrew PS2 app that supports those USB 1.x port for constantly streaming content really is: parsley and powdered sugar over dogshit. If you can live with and accept it, knock yourself out. The option is there.

Heck, if my 200GB Seagate died tomorrow, my choices would be limited to using a 16GB Sandisk in my desk, or moving the PS2 so I can drape an ethernet cable across my floor to reach it, and try not to trip over it until I found a good replacement drive. The choice is a no-brainer for me - I've already have two throw rugs, what's one more? And if I didn't have a spare throw rug, I've got an alibi (e.g. "But that's the most fugly and rattiest bath towel in the closet, woman! It's gonna be five oil rags eventually ...")

[yoshi314]

i agree, FAT filesystem is venerable and there are decent workarounds for its filesize limitation.

also, you can simply share your usb layout through smb and opl will support it (afaik, didn't try it personally), so you do not need to convert images back and forth.

while i'm pretty sure that standard dvd size slightly exceeds 4gb, i don't think many games use full capacity of the disc.

[Bat Rastard]

Correct, because the majority of that space is eaten by FMV, multi-language, and dummy files. The average PS2 game weighed in around 3.5GB because of it. Plus, DVD9 dual layer was still in its infancy back then, and thus came with a higher price tag than DVD5. Whereas Sony, EA, and Square didn't balk at the extra 5 or 6 figures it took for them to press their code on a few hundred thousand dual layers, smaller companies either flirting with bankruptcy or close to going into the red (i.e. Midway, Capcom, Konami, Tecmo, Koei, NIS, Atlus) would have to do a lot of number crunching to justify it. More often than not, they saved themselves money cutting their games across multidisc DVD5s. If the game was a hit, sold like hotcakes, and qualified for Sony's "Greatest Hits", they'd add extra content and features to justify the DVD9 format. It still sad that most of those companies mentioned either merged with each other or gone bankrupt in the years since.

[wazup640]

Correct, because the majority of that space is eaten by FMV, multi-language, and dummy files. The average PS2 game weighed in around 3.5GB because of it. Plus, DVD9 dual layer was still in its infancy back then, and thus came with a higher price tag than DVD5. Whereas Sony, EA, and Square didn't balk at the extra 5 or 6 figures it took for them to press their code on a few hundred thousand dual layers, smaller companies either flirting with bankruptcy or close to going into the red (i.e. Midway, Capcom, Konami, Tecmo, Koei, NIS, Atlus) would have to do a lot of number crunching to justify it. More often than not, they saved themselves money cutting their games across multidisc DVD5s. If the game was a hit, sold like hotcakes, and qualified for Sony's "Greatest Hits", they'd add extra content and features to justify the DVD9 format. It still sad that most of those companies mentioned either merged with each other or gone bankrupt in the years since.

Most 4GB+ games even use one or two 1GB fillup files to ensure the game data is on the outside of the disk to speed up loading. Replacing those files by a 1 byte files, mostly causes those games to drop even below 1GB in size.

This of course only works for games not filled with data. e.g. several Guitar Hero titles are 8GB in size and filled with video sequences, but those games even fail to work using SMB, as the video playback stutters and since that happens while playing, these games are unusable.

Wazup