Hacking Devolution

[smf]

2TB is the limit of the device with 512 byte sectors

Drives smaller than 2gb have 4k sectors because there is less overhead, so a drive with the same usable capacity is cheaper to manufacture.

 

[Fishaman P]

FUNCTIONAL, guys.

FAT32 drives get super-inefficient after 32GB.

http://digiex.net/gu...2-patition.html

Word of note:

The Windows 2000/XP installation program and filesystem creation tool imposes a limitation of 32 GiB. However, both systems can read and write to FAT32 file systems of any size. This limitation is by design and according to Microsoft was imposed because many tasks on a very large FAT32 file system become slow and inefficient.

This is true, and can be witnessed by formating a large volume with a small cluster size. For example, formatting 60gb with 512 byte clusters induces a horrible lag (tested with VHD Disk Image).

And that's just a 60GB partition. Just imagine how bad your 1.9TB partition is! Even if the drive isn't slow for whatever reason, the lifespan is being significantly shortened.

 

[JoostinOnline]

FUNCTIONAL, guys.

FAT32 drives get super-inefficient after 32GB.

http://digiex.net/gu...2-patition.html

Word of note:

The Windows 2000/XP installation program and filesystem creation tool imposes a limitation of 32 GiB. However, both systems can read and write to FAT32 file systems of any size. This limitation is by design and according to Microsoft was imposed because many tasks on a very large FAT32 file system become slow and inefficient.

This is true, and can be witnessed by formating a large volume with a small cluster size. For example, formatting 60gb with 512 byte clusters induces a horrible lag (tested with VHD Disk Image).

And that's just a 60GB partition. Just imagine how bad your 1.9TB partition is! Even if the drive isn't slow for whatever reason, the lifespan is being significantly shortened.

It doesn't make a difference for me. I originally had a small FAT32 partition and a large NTFS one, but I made it all FAT32 and nothing changed except I didn't have trouble with the HBC detecting apps.

 

[Midna]

- I haven't completely decided on the "anti-piracy" method yet. The obvious path is to require the original disc in the drive but that won't work for the newer wiis since they can't accept GC discs. But they probably won't be supported by the initial release anyway, until wiimote/classic controller support is added. There are ways to tie disc images to nearly any piece of specific hardware including individual memory cards, wiimotes, SD cards and USB drives. And if I really don't want it to be "cracked", it probably won't be.

>Author considers either forcing the disk to be in the drive, or forcing users to dump games with the loader to be acceptable
This is not a good idea. These methods will render your project unusable to many people. For instance:

• Anyone with lost or damaged disks
• Anyone with two Wiis or those who wish to play their games at a friend's house
• Anyone with a broken DVD drive
• New Wii owners

Personally, I fit under the first three categories


Gamecube games are out of production. The only people who lose revenue from retro game piracy is GameStop. Any method I can think of, especially these two you're toying with, will seriously affect some of the legit users of your project. Don't be Ubisoft. Really, don't.

And seriously, if it's a choice between playing all my lost and damaged games on original hardware with burned disks, or not at all... you know which one we'll choose. You're just denying "pirates" (meaning real pirates and anyone in a less than typical situation) the opportunity to use your project at all. Not to mention the inconvenience of potentially having to redump all of our games...

 

[crwys]

FUNCTIONAL, guys.

FAT32 drives get super-inefficient after 32GB.

http://digiex.net/gu...2-patition.html

Word of note:

The Windows 2000/XP installation program and filesystem creation tool imposes a limitation of 32 GiB. However, both systems can read and write to FAT32 file systems of any size. This limitation is by design and according to Microsoft was imposed because many tasks on a very large FAT32 file system become slow and inefficient.

This is true, and can be witnessed by formating a large volume with a small cluster size. For example, formatting 60gb with 512 byte clusters induces a horrible lag (tested with VHD Disk Image).

And that's just a 60GB partition. Just imagine how bad your 1.9TB partition is! Even if the drive isn't slow for whatever reason, the lifespan is being significantly shortened.

I have a 2.5tb hard drive. 2tb is formatted to fat32. The rest is not formatted. I've had this drive for almost 9 months now. No clicking, no slow downs compared to NTFS. (I've tested read/write times). About 900gb of the drive is used so far.
I'll let you know when the drive dies. It will probably be a few years though. >.>

 

[DeadlyFoez]

- I haven't completely decided on the "anti-piracy" method yet. The obvious path is to require the original disc in the drive but that won't work for the newer wiis since they can't accept GC discs. But they probably won't be supported by the initial release anyway, until wiimote/classic controller support is added. There are ways to tie disc images to nearly any piece of specific hardware including individual memory cards, wiimotes, SD cards and USB drives. And if I really don't want it to be "cracked", it probably won't be.

>Author considers either forcing the disk to be in the drive, or forcing users to dump games with the loader to be acceptable
This is not a good idea. These methods will render your project unusable to many people. For instance:

• Anyone with lost or damaged disks
• Anyone with two Wiis or those who wish to play their games at a friend's house
• Anyone with a broken DVD drive
• New Wii owners

Personally, i fit under the first three categories



Gamecube games are out of production. The only people who loses revenue from retro game piracy is GameStop. Any method I can think of, especially these two you're toying with, will seriously affect some of the legit users of your project. Don't be Ubisoft. Really, don't.

And seriously, if it's a choice between playing all my lost and damaged games on original hardware with burned disks, or not at all... you know which one we'll choose. You're just denying "pirates" (meaning real pirates and anyone in a less than typical situation) the opportunity to use your project at all. Not to mention the inconvenience of potentially having to redump all of our games...

Hasn't it been said enough in this thread to just STFU. Seriously man, your questions will be answered. We don't need 50 people asking the same fucking question every 5 minutes.

Seriously, wait until it's been released and then ask your question, but until then just pull you panties up and wait like everyone else.

 

[Midna]

- I haven't completely decided on the "anti-piracy" method yet. The obvious path is to require the original disc in the drive but that won't work for the newer wiis since they can't accept GC discs. But they probably won't be supported by the initial release anyway, until wiimote/classic controller support is added. There are ways to tie disc images to nearly any piece of specific hardware including individual memory cards, wiimotes, SD cards and USB drives. And if I really don't want it to be "cracked", it probably won't be.

>Author considers either forcing the disk to be in the drive, or forcing users to dump games with the loader to be acceptable
This is not a good idea. These methods will render your project unusable to many people. For instance:

• Anyone with lost or damaged disks
• Anyone with two Wiis or those who wish to play their games at a friend's house
• Anyone with a broken DVD drive
• New Wii owners

Personally, i fit under the first three categories




Gamecube games are out of production. The only people who loses revenue from retro game piracy is GameStop. Any method I can think of, especially these two you're toying with, will seriously affect some of the legit users of your project. Don't be Ubisoft. Really, don't.

And seriously, if it's a choice between playing all my lost and damaged games on original hardware with burned disks, or not at all... you know which one we'll choose. You're just denying "pirates" (meaning real pirates and anyone in a less than typical situation) the opportunity to use your project at all. Not to mention the inconvenience of potentially having to redump all of our games...

Hasn't it been said enough in this thread to just STFU. Seriously man, your questions will be answered. We don't need 50 people asking the same fucking question every 5 minutes.

Seriously, wait until it's been released and then ask your question, but until then just pull you panties up and wait like everyone else.

Ehh? My panties weren't down

And he did answer my previous questions. He answered them by basically saying that he's considering having you dump all your games with his loader, or having the DVD be in the drive. As per my quotation. Unfortunately that only leaves me with more questions. You suggest everyone just not comment about any choices made on the project and just fill the thread with hype and brown nosing? STFU? Seriously?

 

[qwertymodo]

The issue of efficiency with large sector sizes is only an issue when you have a lot of small files. You waste, at most, 1 sector - 1 byte per file (assuming the file size is one byte larger than can fit on a sector). When you are storing large files (like, say GC iso's), the amount of data wasted compared to the amount of data stored is negligible.

 

[tmv_josue]

2TB is the limit of the device with 512 byte sectors

Drives smaller than 2gb have 4k sectors because there is less overhead, so a drive with the same usable capacity is cheaper to manufacture.

I think you mean 2TB.
And I never said that there is no lower capacity drives with larger sector.

The issue of efficiency with large sector sizes is only an issue when you have a lot of small files. You waste, at most, 1 sector - 1 byte per file (assuming the file size is one byte larger than can fit on a sector). When you are storing large files (like, say GC iso's), the amount of data wasted compared to the amount of data stored is negligible.

No one sector, you lose an entire cluster, depending on the size of the cluster and the size of the sector are the number of sectors that are lost.

--------------------------------------------------- -------------
@all:
Stop.
All those things on "my games are scratched, it would be difficult to find the originals, what if I go to a friend's house?"
Nonsense, you just want to piracy, nothing more, let's be frank.

 

[kuwanger]

Hmm..fun stuff about FAT32.

"This limitation is by design and according to Microsoft was imposed because many tasks on a very large FAT32 file system become slow and inefficient."

Um, I'm pretty sure MS did that because of how it (and most other OSs, I imagine) cache the entire FAT into memory to improve performance. In many other filesystems, the links to all the clusters that compose a file are stored in inodes and are grouped together. Meanwhile, FAT stores all its links in one giant File Allocation Table (along with one or more backup copies). So, for a 32GB filesystem with 4KB clusters, you're talking about 8 million records or ~32MB of RAM to constantly store that in memory. Considering Windows XP was released at a time when people were complaining about XP requiring 128MB...consider a nice 128GB drive using up all your RAM just caching the FAT.

"This is true, and can be witnessed by formating a large volume with a small cluster size. For example, formatting 60gb with 512 byte clusters induces a horrible lag (tested with VHD Disk Image)."

And this is just silly. Of course 512 byte clusters kill performance because it increases fragmentation and makes it hard or impossible for the OS's read allocator to do things like turn many smaller cluster read requests in few larger block read requests. Formatting just about any drive with 512 byte clusters is probably a bad idea. With 4KB or 32KB clusters, I'd imagine a lot of those problems go away. Of course I doubt libfat or whatever is caching the whole FAT in RAM. So, I can see more thrashing as a result...but that's going to happen on NTFS too (a 4GB file with 4KB clusters requires ~1M links which will for FAT32 represent 4MB RAM to cache them all or for NTFS (IIRC, NTFS uses 64-bit links) 8MB RAM to cache them all--and yea, continuous chunks could be concatenated together, but then you'd need a linked list of links instead of an array and depending on how fragmented the HD is...that could be worse.

In any case, I can see what MS was talking about at one level, especially as there are a lot of bad things about FAT beyond just how limited it is with things attribution, security, and lack of resilience in failure. But, I sort of wonder just how much that 32GB limit thing was more a condition of the time and the expectation you'd only be using FAT on Windows/Linux/some other decently RAM system.

 

[Fishaman P]

The issue of efficiency with large sector sizes is only an issue when you have a lot of small files. You waste, at most, 1 sector - 1 byte per file (assuming the file size is one byte larger than can fit on a sector). When you are storing large files (like, say GC iso's), the amount of data wasted compared to the amount of data stored is negligible.

Okay, but if you wanna store anything else an a FAT32, you have to deal with major inefficiency or a second FAT32 partition, which is just stupid.

Besides, I can't see NTFS being hard to implement, given the myriad examples (USB loaders), open libraries (libntfs), and documentation.


EDIT: And 512k sectors isn't rare; until very recently, it was the industry standard, and we're not all using 3TB drives here.

 

[Midna]

@all:
Stop.
All those things on "my games are scratched, it would be difficult to find the originals, what if I go to a friend's house?"
Nonsense, you just want to piracy, nothing more, let's be frank.

I'll pirate them all.

 

[tmv_josue]

@[member='Midna']: You have made me shut up .
So what? your games are scratched? Or do you have to install on the HDD of your friends?.

 

[JoostinOnline]

@all:
Stop.
All those things on "my games are scratched, it would be difficult to find the originals, what if I go to a friend's house?"
Nonsense, you just want to piracy, nothing more, let's be frank.

Will some people pirate games? Yes. Does that mean everybody who says their games are scratched/missing is lying? Absolutely not! Don't just throw everybody into a pirate category. That's like saying everybody who has an mp3 player is a pirate.

 

[tmv_josue]

Will some people pirate games? Yes. Does that mean everybody who says their games are scratched/missing is lying? Absolutely not! Don't just throw everybody into a pirate category. That's like saying everybody who has an mp3 player is a pirate.

You're right Joostin, really I say that to those who actually are. And as you can see, is not easy distinguish between which they are or not.

 

[Midna]

@[member='Midna']: You have made me shut up .
So what? your games are scratched? Or do you have to install on the HDD of your friends?.

Yes, some of them are scratched. One or two are missing from their cases. I can't even find some of their cases. Everyone I know has a hacked Wii (I hacked them) so yes, I can normally take my game storing USB flash drives around with me. Even if not, I could launch the loader with Letterbomb.

In any case, you called me a pirate making excuses. I'm not.

 

[davebaol]

OMG guys all this shit is getting annoying

 

[Lucif3r]

What about collectors? I still got my Twilight Princess copy in the original seal, and I aint planning on breaking it any time soon.
So... yes, I have a downloaded copy of Twilight Princess, and yes, I want to play it on my Wii through either (backup)disc or USB. And no, I dont want to spend money on an older DVD drive, I'll just stick with the 'cube then!

Point is - dont just assume everyone who wants to play backups are pirates.

 

[lovewiibrew]

If you ever do accept donations I will definately donate.

 

[tmv_josue]

What about collectors? I still got my Twilight Princess copy in the original seal, and I aint planning on breaking it any time soon.
So... yes, I have a downloaded copy of Twilight Princess, and yes, I want to play it on my Wii through either (backup)disc or USB. And no, I dont want to spend money on an older DVD drive, I'll just stick with the 'cube then!
Point is - dont just assume everyone who wants to play backups are pirates.

Bad, the act of obtaining a copy of a game that is not yours is illegal.
____________________________________________
Don't misunderstand me please, what I not agree is questioning the tueidj's decision to fight piracy.
If it's his decision should be respected, nothing more.
I will not say more, we are just put shit on this thread.