Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!cit-vax!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga NFS
Message-ID: <8710200444.AA19847@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tue, 20-Oct-87 00:44:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: cory.8710200444.AA19847
Posted: Tue Oct 20 00:44:21 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Oct-87 06:23:08 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 21

:>
:>	Is DOS notoriously slow when dealing with the trackdisk.device?
:>The theoretical maximum throughput through a trackdisk.device can be 
:>characterized by VD0: or VDK: . The statistics are wildly different, going
:>from 119K/sec for VD0:, to 873K/sec for VDK: reading.
:
:What we're seeing here is the maximums for the default file system
:handler (VD0:) and the handler built into VDK:  (yup, its got its own)
:I haven't actually checked the max of the default handler, though, but
:120K/sec is probably in the ballpark.

	Ahhhh!!!!!!  That 873K/sec for VDK: did sound a little fast to me.
I was under the impression that VDK: was a simulated trackdisk.device ...
my mistake.  This changes my analysis somewhat:

	Noting the differences in speed between VD0: and VDK: ... approximately
8x, one can assume that the DOS interface to a trackdisk device (VD0 simulates
a trackdisk device) is extremely inefficient.  This, compounded by an 
inefficient disk layout, is why DOS is so slow with hard drives. 

					-Matt