Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!att!alberta!ubc-cs!van-bc!root
From: lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: MaxTransfer
Message-ID: <2261@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 3 Mar 89 00:45:27 GMT
Sender: root@van-bc.UUCP
Lines: 30

In <2940@m2-net.UUCP>, ba@m-net.UUCP (Bill Allen) writes:
 >I've been playing with MaxTransfer and Buffers, increasing and
 >decreasing the values.  I've noticed very little, if any HD improvement.

MaxTransfer is a limiting value. The higher it is, the faster the operation.
Given a properly written driver, you do not have to set a MaxTransfer value,
and it will transfer as much as it can, going as fast as it can.

 >I do notice that even setting both values at a minimum, I use 40K
 >per partition per drive.  Is this normal?  Two drives, each divided
 >into four partitions uses an incredible amount of RAM just by
 >mounting them.

Partitions eat memory. If you have some solid reason for wanting to partition,
and can afford the memory, by all means do so, but there I have only heard one
valid reason to partition, and that is to reduce the time to recover should a
partition bite the big one. Other than that, partitions are pretty much useless
holdovers from the days when Intentionally Brain Munged machines couldn't handle
large drives.

-larry

--
Frisbeetarianism: The belief that when you die, your soul goes up on
                  the roof and gets stuck.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   //   Larry Phillips                                                |
| \X/    lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca or uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips  |
|        COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322                                        |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+