dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (02/19/88)
Just as long as it supports an arbitrary partition size! -Matt
cheung@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU (Wilson Cheung) (11/24/88)
I installed FFS on a ST251-1 using an Expansion Technologies Seagate
controller. Files loaded and saved at blinding speeds compared to the old
system. Unfortunately virtually every single file was corrupted causing my
Amiga to crash and program icons to take funny shapes.
I followed the installation instructions for the 2090 driver, which
doesn't mention the inclusion of a MAXTRANSFER or MASK statement in the
MountList file. Since someone had mentioned using these statements in
conjunction with the overdrive controller, I was wondering if using
them would solve my problem. If so what should I set the MAXTRANSFER and
MASK statements equal [to]?
Wilson Cheungsterling@cbmvax.UUCP (Rick Sterling QA) (11/28/88)
In article <2034@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU> cheung@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU (Wilson Cheung) writes: > > I installed FFS on a ST251-1 using an Expansion Technologies Seagate > controller. Files loaded and saved at blinding speeds compared to the old > system. Unfortunately virtually every single file was corrupted causing my > Amiga to crash and program icons to take funny shapes. > > I followed the installation instructions for the 2090 driver, which > doesn't mention the inclusion of a MAXTRANSFER or MASK statement in the > MountList file. Since someone had mentioned using these statements in > conjunction with the overdrive controller, I was wondering if using > them would solve my problem. If so what should I set the MAXTRANSFER and > MASK statements equal [to]? > > > > Wilson Cheung See page 3-2 of your 1.3 Enhancer Manual for mountlist parameter details. The manufacturer of your controller should be able to advise you on what mountlist parameters are required. -- ============================================================================= Rick Sterling COMMODORE AMIGA TEST ENGINEERING N2CGI UUCP {allegra,rutgers}!cbmvax!sterling =============================================================================
cheung@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU (Wilson Cheung) (01/17/89)
Well, I finally after spending a whole day backing up and reformatting my hard disk (not to mention competely trashing a 40 meg drive) I finally got the FFS working on a ST225 with an Expansion Technologies ST506 hard card. And in eager anticipation I click on my Scribble! wordprocessor, the same program that took 7 seconds to load under the old system takes-- hold my breath-- 7 seconds to load under FFS. Whoopee! Under what conditions will FFS afford you no speed gain? Would I gain some speed if I changed the interleave in the high level format? You start out with a hard drive that Seagate strictly states must be operated at 5 Mbits/sec for proper operation, and somewhere in between we drop to under 20kbytes/sec; come on! Wilson Cheung
blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) (01/19/89)
From article <2114@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU>, by cheung@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU (Wilson Cheung): > Under what conditions will FFS afford you no speed gain? Would > I gain some speed if I changed the interleave in the high level format? > You start out with a hard drive that Seagate strictly states must be > operated at 5 Mbits/sec for proper operation, and somewhere in between > we drop to under 20kbytes/sec; come on! I've got an ST4096 ST506 interface drive hooked to my A2090A. I saw no measurable difference in performance with different interleave values (under the FFS). I've never run it under the OFS, so I can't compare any numbers there, but I get a pretty solid 200-240K/second with Diskperf (32K buffers). -- Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 Here: utah-cs!esunix!blgardne {ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!esunix!blgardne There: uunet!iconsys!caeco!pedro!worsel!blaine "Nobody will ever need more than 64K." "Nobody needs multitasking on a PC."