Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wang.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!wanginst!wang!ephraim
From: ephraim@wang.UUCP (pri=8 Ephraim Vishniac x76659 ms1459)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: More Disk Benchmarks
Message-ID: <782@wang.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Mar-86 08:30:42 EST
Article-I.D.: wang.782
Posted: Thu Mar 27 08:30:42 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 06:09:28 EST
References: <8603250824.AA26698@kim.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA
Lines: 11

> For kicks I ran the Brecher disk benchmark on a Mac+ with a RAM disk and with
> Apple's internal 800K floppy drive.
> 
> The results suggest that the disk cache makes little difference.  Is that
> right?

I'm surprised that the cache makes any difference at all.  The benchmark
program makes direct calls to driver (so the posted description says; I
haven't looked at the code).  Reasonably, this should bypass the Apple
disk cache code.  The caching should only affect file I/O, not direct disk
I/O.