ranjit@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Ranjit Bhatnagar) (05/15/89)
I've noticed a strange phenomenon: when I ADDBUFFERS on df0: or df1:,
the buffers appear, but are never re-used unless I eject the disk:
that is, if I allocate 40 buffers, as soon as I've read 40 sectors
off the disk, I don't get any buffering any more except from those
40 sectors.
Sample session:
command <disk gronking?>
------- ----------------
date <gronk gronk>
date <gronk gronk>
addbuffers df0: 40 <gronk gronk>
date <gronk gronk>
date <blissful silence>
ls c: <gronk gronk GRONK gronk gronk gronk gronk>
date <blissful silence>
echo <gronk gronk>
echo <gronk gronk>
even though the echo command clearly should have been buffered, it
wasn't, apparently because the date and ls commands used up all the
buffers. NOTE: I am not sure that my explanation is correct, but
the behavior in the above sample session has been observed consistently.
Similarly, when I use a vt100 script that contains a loop, the disk
runs continuously during the loop (if the loop crosses a sector
boundary) unless I add fresh new buffers just before starting the
script.
This seems to happen under arp 1.2 and 1.3, on a 1 meg, 2 drive
2000 and a 2.5 meg, 1 drive 1000. I do not remember it happening
when I used the commodore commands. Am I hallucinating? Does this
happen to anyone else? Why should ARP have anything to do with it?
(Maybe it doesn't.) Should I give up and buy FACC? (I probably
should anyway, now that I have 2.5 megs to burn.)
- - ranjit
"Trespassers w" ranjit@eniac.seas.upenn.edu mailrus!eecae!netnews!eniac!...
Near the sides of tall buildings, how dare they kiss goodbye?
Those buildings that saw the airplanes that kiss the air in their fantasy.doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (05/15/89)
In article <11127@netnews.upenn.edu> ranjit@grad2.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Ranjit Bhatnagar) writes: > [ deleted description of buffers being "sticky" under arp (not being reused) ] > Should I give up and buy FACC? I use FACC, and had noticed a similar problem since I installed arp 1.3 (I hadn't been using arp previously). I haven't done thorough testing, but it sure seems to behave the way you described. Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug doug@xdos.com Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary
dsuzuki@wheaton.UUCP (Daniel Suzuki) (05/19/89)
In article <291@xdos.UUCP> doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes: >In article <11127@netnews.upenn.edu> ranjit@grad2.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Ranjit Bhatnagar) writes: >> [ deleted description of buffers being "sticky" under arp (not being reused) ] >> Should I give up and buy FACC? > >I use FACC, and had noticed a similar problem since I installed arp 1.3 >(I hadn't been using arp previously). I haven't done thorough testing, >but it sure seems to behave the way you described. > Doug >-- >Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug doug@xdos.com >Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary I use FACCII also, and when I used the arpinstall program provided with the arp package, I also had problems with my disk gronking forever just to load a simple command from disk. I figured it was just disk fragmentation and did a COPY df0: TO df1: ALL QUIET --I suppose if you have B.A.D. or Tune-up or something like that it probably works better, but I did the COPY method, and at least I got rid of the gronking... -Daniel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -dsuzuki@wheaton | UUCP: {spl1|obdient}!wheaton!dsuzuki "I've come to the conclusion that | C and C++ don't support arrays..." | USmail: CPO 2519 WHEATON COLLEGE -johnh | Wheaton, IL 60187 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------