Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!gnh-starport.cts.com!whitewolf From: whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: RamFast Write-Through Cache? Message-ID: Date: 28 Apr 91 18:02:32 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 25 X-Unparsable-Date: Sat Apr 27 91 at 22:50:58 (EDT) |> What I meant was that if the controller card recieves 256K worth of data |> in say, second or two, or if it realizes that the GS is sending it big |> files, then it writes 256K or so at a time. | | But why is it taking so long to fill up 256K? If the GS is writing out a |big file, I expect it to DMA a block of memory to the RAMFast buffer. So |instead of a 1 or 2-second delay, it would be writing out a FULL buffer every |half-second or so... While the CPU runs at 2.8Mhz, and the DMA controller at 10Mhz, There is still a very large bottleneck. Anything going through the slots to RAM has a 1Mhz bottleneck, no matter what. The controller cuts down as much overhead as possible and that's about it. What's the argument about anyways... The RamFAST (80.9MB Seagate) is faster than my RAM Disk, in throughput. It might be faster when you do a statistics analysis of how fast they are, but the throughput is what counts, and it beats the pants off any disk system, that I can think of for the GS, so do something more productive like writting a Norton Utilities for it or something... geez no body seems to appriciate the marvel of engineering that RAMFast is as if they could do something better... a feat comparable to surviving a fall the Twin Towers... BOTH of them. INET: whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com UUCP: crash!gnh-starport!whitewolf ARPA: crash!gnh-starport!whitewolf@nosc.mil