Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!scott
From: scott@ubvax.UB.Com (Scott Scheiman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: MKS: multi-volume backups (really DOS 'pipes')
Message-ID: <5902@ubvax.UB.Com>
Date: 12 Feb 88 11:41:01 GMT
References: <195@tijc02.UUCP> <2962@cup.portal.com> <391@mks.UUCP>
Organization: Ungermann-Bass Enterprises, Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 29

In article <391@mks.UUCP>, alex@mks.UUCP (Alex White) writes:
< Consider though, how A | B is implemented:
< Unix:
< 	A runs, data copied to kernel,
< 	context switch to B
< 	data copy from kernel to B
< 	context switch back to A,
< 	...
< Dos:
< 	A runs to completion: data copied to RAM disk
< 	Switch to B: data copied from RAM disk to B
< Now, with the assumption of a RAM disk, and one which is large enough
< for your largest pipe [I have about a meg] can anyone think of any reason
< that the dos method should be slower in terms of time-to-complete?

Maybe the version of DOS I'm using is too old (I use 3.10), but in the
world I get to live in there is no way that I know of to tell DOS to use
any disk drive but the current drive when it implements a 'pipe'.  For
many applications, having to have the RAM disk be the current drive
makes the command awkward to type (at the least) and occasionally
impossible (there are programs which have requirements about the current
drive/directory).

Does anyone know of a way to tell DOS what drive to use for the 'pipe'
intermediate file?
-- 
"Ribbit!"       Scott (Beam Me Up, Scotty!) Scheiman      Ungermann-Bass, Inc.
  ` /\/@\/@\/\       ..decvax!amd!ubvax!scott            3990 Freedom Circle
   _\ \ -  / /_           (408) 562-5572                Santa Clara, CA 95050