Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!dog.ee.lbl.gov!elf.ee.lbl.gov!torek From: torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs Subject: Re: Incremental sync()s and using disk idle time Message-ID: <10837@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Date: 12 Mar 91 15:02:26 GMT References: <28975@cs.yale.edu> <10773@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <3236@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Reply-To: torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley Lines: 16 X-Local-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 91 07:02:26 PST >In article <10773@dog.ee.lbl.gov> I wrote: >>Sometimes I think we need a Coalition to Stamp Out `Smart' I/O Devices, In article <3236@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >... any smarts which improve performance as welcome on my system. But that is just the point: these `Smart' (or, as more aptly named, `Smart Ass') devices do NOT improve performance, and GET IN YOUR WAY when you try to improve it yourself. All they offer is convenience, and often it is a sham anyway (the controller does y and z for you, but first you have to set it up with sequence a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j each time). -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab EE div (+1 415 486 5427) Berkeley, CA Domain: torek@ee.lbl.gov