Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!think!ames!ucbcad!zen!dorothy.Berkeley.EDU!c9c-eh From: c9c-eh@dorothy.Berkeley.EDU (Warner Young (WHY)) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: FILE I/O Message-ID: <4877@zen.berkeley.edu> Date: Fri, 13-Nov-87 02:50:40 EST Article-I.D.: zen.4877 Posted: Fri Nov 13 02:50:40 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 15-Nov-87 06:28:11 EST References: <2023@homxc.UUCP> <2862@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <2064@homxc.UUCP> Sender: news@zen.berkeley.edu Reply-To: c9c-eh@dorothy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Warner Young (WHY)) Organization: Safety Seal Software (no really, I'll write something, someday) Lines: 32 Keywords: C, Fseek, fseek In article <2064@homxc.UUCP> jdn@homxc.UUCP (J.NAGY) writes: >In article <2862@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, braner@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (braner) writes: >> >> The raw GEMDOS functions are faster (due to >> no buffering) but you should set up your own buffering. > >I don't quite understand this. If I have to do my own buffering with >Fread, while fread does the buffering for me, then the fread call >appears easier to use. And since the application has to buffer Fread >calls itself, any speed advantage of Fread (due to no buffering!) is >negated. So I can see no advantage to the Fread. > I wondered about this also, for some time. Then I decided to test it out. A friend and I each wrote the same program, but I used the capital F calls, and he the lower case f calls. I even put more bells and whistles into my program, and the speed is significantly higher, even accounting for the fact that I have to do my own buffering and managing. 8K to 16K are the best speeds, to get the most out of your floppies. I haven't done any tests to see how much difference buffer size makes on a hard disk (my Supra died!). \ / Disclaimer: I'm not associated \ /\ /arner with the latest revision \/ \__/ of SANITY. |oung \___| Last known address: c9c-eh@dorothy.Berkeley.EDU or ucbvax!dorothy!c9c-eh