kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) (05/17/88)
Could someone explain WHY RAM: is 6x faster than VD0:? Is it impossible to have a recoverable RAM disk that is anywhere near as fast as RAM:? -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (05/17/88)
In article <2926@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> (Keith P. Mancus) writes: > Could someone explain WHY RAM: is 6x faster than VD0:? Is it >impossible to have a recoverable RAM disk that is anywhere near as >fast as RAM:? Because VD0: is a device driver to a RAM based disk and RAM: is a filesystem handler that uses ram. (VDK: is also a handler based system that uses ram as well). Yes, you can get VD0: to run nearly as fast as RAM, but you will have to wait for the fast file system to do it. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (05/17/88)
> Could someone explain WHY RAM: is 6x faster than VD0:? Is it >impossible to have a recoverable RAM disk that is anywhere near as VD0: simulates a trackdisk.device and thus all access goes through DOS's disk oriented filing system. RAM: on the otherhand *is* a DOS device driver and handles the packets (open/close/read/write....) directly. >fast as RAM:? Easily. > -Keith Mancus > <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu> -Matt