Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!nic.MR.NET!srcsip!voltron!leyse
From: leyse@voltron.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Todd Leyse)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: FFS with 512 byte buffers
Message-ID: <15807@srcsip.UUCP>
Date: 31 Jan 89 07:04:47 GMT
References: <2188@van-bc.UUCP>
Sender: news@src.honeywell.COM
Reply-To: leyse@voltron.UUCP (Todd Leyse)
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN
Lines: 36

In article <2188@van-bc.UUCP> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes:
>In <2144@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU>, cheung@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU (Wilson Cheung) writes:
>>	I've been hearing people getting satisfactory results with FFS using
>>a 32K setting for MaxTransfer.

>>Unfortunately the driver for my hard disk will only permit a MaxTranser
>>of 512K bytes.

     ^^^^^^^^^^ Am I missing something?  Isn't 512K bytes enough?
		Which is correct - the subject line or the article?

>That is unfortunate. Are you sure about the 512 bytes figure? I have seen a
>number of figures for different products, but none as low as this. What
>driver/controller are you running?

I don't know much about it either but this sounds wrong.  Isn't the new
FFS similar to UN*X's FFS?  Does it use 4096 byte blocks whenever
possible instead of 512 byte blocks?

>sectors containing it. With MaxTransfer set to 512 bytes, it will take the same
>number of requests to load as it would have under the old file system (800

>[deletion of paragraphs without 512 in them ;-) ...]

>or if that will not happen, change to another controller. Runninf FFS at a
>maxTransfer of 512 bytes offers only marginal improvement in speed and drive
>data capacity.
>-larry

Enquiring minds want to know...


Todd C Leyse   MN65-2100    Honeywell Systems and Research Center
Voice:     (612)782-7380    Snail:    3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418
Amiga: Not Available yet    Internet: leyse@moon.honeywell.com
UUCP:  leyse@srcsip.uucp    Bang:     {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!leyse