a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs) (10/22/90)
In article <1990Oct22.033330.22005@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >I'm really curious at all this VD0: and VK0: traffic. So am I. I've been using VD0: ever since it came out (3 years or more?) and in all that time I've maybe lost it once. This covers many gurus (including "fireworks mode") as well as buffered disk copiers like DFC. For a while, we were using Marauder to copy PD disks at our local club meeting; I'd re-boot without activating VD0:, copy disks using Marauder in buffered mode, then boot back into my standard configuration to find VD0: still there, complete with my Workbench (this was before I got my hard disk). On my A1000, a bad crash might take out my homebrewed clock hardware, but VD0: hangs in there. I have never used RAD: and have no intention of ever doing so. Its fatal drawback (IMHO) is that it grabs its maximum amount of memory whether it's using it or not. My 960K VD0: uses just about zip until I start putting files into it; unused space is free for other programs to use. VD0: is one of the greatest Amiga utilities ever made, and Perry Kivolowitz deserves a hearty round of thanks for making it available. Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.UUCP I'm trying to develop a photographic memory.
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (10/22/90)
I'm really curious at all this VD0: and VK0: traffic. I've been using
the RAD: that Commodore supplies for eighteen months or so with no
problems whatever, and except for a couple of times when I was running
some really braindead demo code, that trashed it thoroughly, it's never
failed to recover for me. I use a 6.5 meg RAD: every day, sloshing files
around like crazy while multitasking for all I'm worth.
Why are people still searching for a recoverable ram disk? "It's in
there!" If there's something horribly wrong with RAD:, I'm not sure I
want to know at this late date. Is my computer about to develop dry rot
or something?
;-)
/// It's Amiga
/// for me: why
Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for
<xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> \XX/ anything less?peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (10/22/90)
In article <1990Oct22.033330.22005@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > Why are people still searching for a recoverable ram disk? "It's in > there!" If there's something horribly wrong with RAD:, I'm not sure I > want to know at this late date. Is my computer about to develop dry rot > or something? Well, if you can afford a 6.5 meg RAD: you probably wouldn't have noticed, but RAD: is a *fixed* size RAM disk. You have to decide ahead of time just how much you're going to slosh into there. One of the great things about RAM: and its emulators (VD0:, VDK:) is that you *don't* have to lock down a fixed chunk of RAM for the purpose. (as for me, I just go right to my Quantum... fastest bloody drive I've ever seen in a PC. Dicking with a RAM disk is just painting the lily.) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
rusty@steelmill.cs.umd.edu (Rusty Haddock) (10/22/90)
In article <1990Oct22.033330.22005@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >Why are people still searching for a recoverable ram disk? "It's in >there!" If there's something horribly wrong with RAD:, I'm not sure I >want to know at this late date. Is my computer about to develop dry rot >or something? My understanding was that RAD: does not give memory back once it's used. I forgot, maybe it even sucks up memory all at once, at mount time, to satisfy its maximum memory size. VD0:, on the other hand, allocates memory as it is needed. Also, if I delete some files from it then I can run 'cleanramdisk' and get back the "used" memory for my processes. Correct me if I'm wrong about RAD:. -Rusty- -- Rusty Haddock DOMAIN: rusty@mimsy.cs.umd.edu Computer Science Department PATH: {uunet,rutgers}!mimsy!rusty University of Maryland "IBM sucks silicon!" College Park, Maryland 20742 -- PC Banana Jr,"Bloom County"
etxtomp@eos.ericsson.se (Tommy Petersson) (10/22/90)
In article <1990Oct22.033330.22005@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
-I'm really curious at all this VD0: and VK0: traffic. I've been using
-the RAD: that Commodore supplies for eighteen months or so with no
-problems whatever, and except for a couple of times when I was running
-some really braindead demo code, that trashed it thoroughly, it's never
-failed to recover for me. I use a 6.5 meg RAD: every day, sloshing files
-around like crazy while multitasking for all I'm worth.
-
-Why are people still searching for a recoverable ram disk? "It's in
-there!" If there's something horribly wrong with RAD:, I'm not sure I
-want to know at this late date. Is my computer about to develop dry rot
-or something?
-
-;-)
- /// It's Amiga
- /// for me: why
-Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for
-<xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> \XX/ anything less?
I don't know the answer to Kent's question - perhaps the other RAM disks
are like good ol' RAM and don't use up more memory than is currently used?
I have, however, a related question: I have been using RAD: for a while
without any problems. Now I have upgraded(?) from my A2090 to a Supra WordSync
controller (mainly for the AutoBoot, but also to get rid of the DMA contension
R/W errors when using programs with many colours and overscan).
When I try to use RAD: in the same way as with my A2090 (same MountList part)
I get mucho problems. The hard disk will no longer autoboot and I sometimes
get disk validation error on RAD: at reboot. I have not tried every possible
way to do this, but a lot of them (to no avail).
Anyone with some help?
Tommy Peterssonmaxc0849@ucselx.sdsu.edu (InnerTangent) (10/22/90)
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Oct22.033330.22005@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >> Why are people still searching for a recoverable ram disk? "It's in >> there!" If there's something horribly wrong with RAD:, I'm not sure I >> want to know at this late date. Is my computer about to develop dry rot >> or something? >Well, if you can afford a 6.5 meg RAD: you probably wouldn't have noticed, >but RAD: is a *fixed* size RAM disk. You have to decide ahead of time just >how much you're going to slosh into there. One of the great things about >RAM: and its emulators (VD0:, VDK:) is that you *don't* have to lock down >a fixed chunk of RAM for the purpose. >(as for me, I just go right to my Quantum... fastest bloody drive I've ever > seen in a PC. Dicking with a RAM disk is just painting the lily.) >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. Yes. That's very true. the RRAM, VDP: VDK: are quite flexible; for they return all the 'free' or 'unused' sectors of the Recoverable 'RAMDisk' to the OS. But! All these memory allocations fragement your Fast memory so much that every once in a while, (after messive writing/erasing the ram: drive) you got to reboot again (with your ram disk, of course) to obtain a new, clean, un-fragmented memory to work with. Other then that, the *flexible* ram drives are quite nice. p.s. Now tell me, is there a *fixed* recoverable ram drive that could handle -more- then one recov. ramdrive mounted at the same time? (I don't think RAD: could do that) BECAUSE I need a disk-sized RAD: to boot up (it's full), and yet another one for downloading/lharc-zooing/testing/etc. Could somebody assist me on this one? Thank you. -- [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] [] Only Amiga makes it Possible.. | InnerTangent: maxc0849@ucselx.sdsu.edu [] [] Mind is the basis of reality. | In Real Life: Bill Chiu []
n074ev@tamuts.tamu.edu (Christopher Walton) (10/22/90)
Well for one thing RAD takes up RAM. it is too big and combersome for everyday
use. It is GREAT if you want to copy a game there and boot it, and run it ligh
ning fast. But for everyday, guru, or reboot saving, it really does suck.
And for programming purposes it is not good because it is a logical disk which must be there by tracks, not by whatever you put in it. In VDK: you put in a 50
k file you get about a 52k memory loss, no big deal, with rad, you have a memory loss of however big your rad device is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Walton : n07ev@tamuts.tamu.edu
'To LIVE is to use an AMIGA!' : cmw1725@tamvenus.tamu.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------rhunt@icard.med.unc.edu (Rick Hunt) (10/23/90)
You might want to try RRamDisk, another in the line of recoverable ram disks. I just picked it up recently, so I haven't completely checked it out, but it seems quite nice. It combines the best of VD0: (which I use a lot) and RAD:. RRamDisk is recoverable (surprise! :-) and gives memory back when not in use. It does not seem to hang on to it like VD0: does sometimes, requiring the user to run cleanramdisk. Its advantages are that can be diskcopied to and from, although like RAD: not from the workbench, only from the CLI. Anyone know why? One can also mount multiple drives, although I haven't tried this yet. The most unusual feature is that the power light flashes when it is giving back memory, which took a little getting used to. Rick
DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu (10/23/90)
In article <1990Oct22.033330.22005@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>, xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) says: >I'm really curious at all this VD0: and VK0: traffic. I've been using >the RAD: that Commodore supplies for eighteen months or so with no >problems whatever, and except for a couple of times when I was running >some really braindead demo code, that trashed it thoroughly, it's never >failed to recover for me. I use a 6.5 meg RAD: every day, sloshing files >around like crazy while multitasking for all I'm worth. >Why are people still searching for a recoverable ram disk? "It's in >there!" If there's something horribly wrong with RAD:, I'm not sure I Are you joking??? RAD has so many problems as a recoverable RAM disk it's not even funny. I'd take the original VD0 (created in the days of Kickstart 1.0) over RAD any day. RAD has its uses - I do use it - but not as a RRD. Here is an incomplete list of problems: 1) It uses the most absurd memory allocation system in the world. Forget AllocM em, let's scan the mem lists and do strange things instead (don't tell me this is required, because I wrote an RRD similiar to RAD) 2) It is VERY easy to lose the contents of the ram disk. Try loading up Shadow of the Beast (or whatever) after using RAD, then reboot. It's gone! VD0 handles this with NO PROBLEMS, assuming that a) you have fast mem and b) the ram disk is using fast mem. If those two conditions are satisfied, it's almost impossibl e to lose the ram disk, no matter what you do! 3) Fixed size. Don't get me wrong - I use RAD only because it IS fixed size - b ut then I don't use RAD as a recoverable RAM disk. I'm quite annoyed that this silly program is going into the 2.0 ROM at the expe nse of dozens of other, truly useful things (like a useable, reasonably powerfu l RomWack!!!!!!!) -- Dan Babcock
aduncan@rhea.trl.oz (Allan Duncan) (10/23/90)
From article <1990Oct22.033330.22005@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>, by xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan): > I'm really curious at all this VD0: and VK0: traffic. I've been using > the RAD: that Commodore supplies for eighteen months or so with no > problems whatever, and except for a couple of times when I was running > some really braindead demo code, that trashed it thoroughly, it's never > failed to recover for me. I use a 6.5 meg RAD: every day, sloshing files > around like crazy while multitasking for all I'm worth. > > Why are people still searching for a recoverable ram disk? "It's in > there!" If there's something horribly wrong with RAD:, I'm not sure I > want to know at this late date. Is my computer about to develop dry rot > or something? > ;-) As one who continues to use VD0:, I will explain. RAD: requires you to set up a _fixed_ size disk equivalent in advance of using it. VD0:, like RAM:, is dynamic in size, with you only needing to set the maximum size in advance. Since it is dynamic, it is up to me to trade memory for programs against recoverable storage as I go along. Less of a problem on the 2000 at work with its 1+2M of memory, but quite important for the 1/2M 1000 at home. I have looked at RAD:, and found that its only virtue over VD0: is the ability to use FFS, but now most of the DOS commands can be made resident, even that is less significant. As a side issue, when using the Kickfile version of 2.0, RAD: is not recoverable, but VD0: is (well, the original one from Perry). My startup allows me to chooes 1.3 or 2.0, and I can keep stuff in memory between boots. Allan Duncan ACSnet a.duncan@trl.oz (03) 541 6708 ARPA a.duncan%trl.oz.au@uunet.uu.net UUCP {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!trl.oz!a.duncan Telecom Research Labs, PO Box 249, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
fhwri%CONNCOLL.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (10/23/90)
I use VDK: (which came with my A1000 RAM expander) because it's just like
RAM: ; it's the size of the files it contains. VD0:, good as it is, needs
the "Clean RAMDisk" program to reduce memory usage, and RAD: is one size
and one size only. I still like VDK:...
--Rick Wrigley
fhwri@conncoll.bitnetandy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (10/24/90)
In article <1990Oct22.160121.9197@ucselx.sdsu.edu> maxc0849@ucselx.sdsu.edu (InnerTangent) writes: > p.s. Now tell me, is there a *fixed* recoverable ram drive that > could handle -more- then one recov. ramdrive mounted at the > same time? (I don't think RAD: could do that) The new improved 2.0 version of RAD does support multiple units. andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "He always did have a keen grasp of the obvious" Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
dgold@basso.actrix.co.nz (Dale Gold) (10/24/90)
Quoted from - xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan): > I'm really curious at all this VD0: and VK0: traffic. I've been using > the RAD: that Commodore supplies for eighteen months or so with no > problems whatever [...] > > Why are people still searching for a recoverable ram disk? "It's in > there!" If there's something horribly wrong with RAD:, I'm not sure I > want to know at this late date. > I'm surprised to hear of all the trouble people have had with VD0:, it's always worked perfectly on my A1000. I prefer it to RAD: because it allocates memory dynamically - a 1meg vd0: only uses 1meg if it's full, and RAD: seems to occupy 1meg even if it's empty. I guess if you've got 6.5 megs to play around in, it's not a big deal. -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% | | Critics can't even make | | dgold@basso.actrix.co.nz | music by rubbing their back | | | legs together. - Mel Brooks | %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) (10/25/90)
VD0: does reduce mem usage about one every 5 minutes. Howevern, if you need the memory NOW, just run CleanRamDisk, if you could even set it up to run under AmiCron. -Joseph Hillenburg UUCP: ...iuvax!valnet!joseph ARPA: valnet!joseph@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu INET: joseph@valnet.UUCP