Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!andy
From: andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Arp Copy  vs.  AmigaDOS Copy
Message-ID: <4011@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jun 88 15:22:04 GMT
References: <880610121707.02j@Ins.MRC.AdhocNet.CA>
Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 28

In article <880610121707.02j@Ins.MRC.AdhocNet.CA> svermeulen%Ins.MRC.AdhocNet.CA@UNCAEDU.BITNET (Steve Vermeulen) writes:
>disksalv but that is besides the point.)  Imagine my surprise that system
>performance actually deteriorated.  After the files were copied the command
>"dir opt a" took 44.5 seconds, much longer than it normally takes.
>
>    After scratching my head for a while I realized the only thing changed
>was that I was using the ARP copy command instead of the AmigaDOS copy.
>After repeating the procedure this time using the AmigaDOS copy command the
>same directory command only took 21.1 seconds.

This one bothers me too; ARP library has a nice command to return all the
file names in a directory.  Very nice, easy to use.  Unfortunately, it
always returns the names in sorted order.  So, the copy command, which
uses this list to fetch files, and save files, is working against the
hash function that AmigaDOS uses to place files on the disk.  So
the ARP copy will tend to frag the disk.

I'm pretty sure if enough people complain, Charlie Heath will
change it in the future.  (Or at least make it an option)
-- 
andy finkel		{ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy 
Commodore-Amiga, Inc.

"C combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of
 assembly language."
		
Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share.
I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.