Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!cbmehq!babylon!rbabel From: rbabel@babylon.rmt.sub.org (Ralph Babel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware Subject: Re: Too many partitions for 14.4k Message-ID: <08505.AA08505@babylon.rmt.sub.org> Date: 15 Jun 91 06:07:43 GMT References: Reply-To: cbmvax.commodore.com!cbmehq!babylon!rbabel (Ralph Babel) Lines: 48 In article , ba569s984@sycom.UUCP (Bill Allen) writes: > Too many HD partitions mean big trouble with modem speeds > >9600. Cannot be said often enough ... > John "JrComm" Radigan is convinced this problem is caused > by the system needing to check each partition for > "disk-change", like floppies. 1.3 FFS doesn't check for medium changes anyway. It's simply the per-process overhead caused by all the filesystems (timer ticks and such). > Why is the system checking for "change" in fixed HDs > anyway???? It doesn't. Well, at least GVP's SCSI driver doesn't. > Why are static, "mounted, but not currently in use" > partitions using so much of the CPU's resources? See above. > Is a patch to l:Disk-Validator needed? Nope. L:Disk-Validator is used to restore the bitmap of OFS disks. The new 2.0 ROM filesystem has a much lower overhead. > Is a patch to Expansion:gvpscsi needed? Nope, there is no checking going on for fixed disks anyway. > Is [gvpscsi V3.7] the very latest release? No, ask your dealer or GVP for an upgrade. It won't make any difference in the reliability of serial transmission, though (it doesn't cause the problem, so it cannot fix it). > I notice it [FaaastPrep] reports the PRIORITY of each > partition as 0, but Steve Tibbets "TaskX" shows every > partition as PRIORITY 10. You are confusing boot priority and task priority. Ralph