Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!brtph3!brchh104!brchs1!bnr.ca!rice.edu!sun-spots-request
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun
Subject: Re: Myths about tape block sizes
Keywords: Miscellaneous
Message-ID: <1101@brchh104.bnr.ca>
Date: 9 Jan 91 00:37:20 GMT
Sender: news@brchh104.bnr.ca
Organization: Sun-Spots
Lines: 12
Approved: Sun-Spots@rice.edu
X-Refs:  Original: v9n405, Replies: v9n414
X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 11, message 12
X-Note: Submissions: sun-spots@rice.edu, Admin: sun-spots-request@rice.edu

>>>>> On 31 Dec 90 17:28:40 GMT, dan@breeze.bellcore.com (Daniel Strick) said:

Daniel> There is no universally optimum buffer size.

True. It's strange. People keep telling that I should use the default,
that all sort of horrible things will happen otherwise, that the default
is faster anyway, etc.

On all the various platforms I've tried, I have found something faster,
and I've yet to see problems. I often use 2000 for block size, and it
tends to be *much* faster that the default (a factor of three or so). It
worked in '85, in worked three days ago, and it probably still does.