[comp.sys.amiga] Harddisks for Amiga 2000

hsgj@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Dan Green) (04/26/87)

Here is a question for Perry of ASDG in particular, of interest
to other hard disk developers, and for Commodore in general.
The Amiga 2000 has this large hole in the front of the machine
that is supposed to be for a hard disk.  Will ASDG's new
hard disk fit inside this hole?  I sure hope that this product,
and any other hard drives, are internal, as the Amiga 2000 seems
big enough as is.

Now here's the question for Commodore or other parties in the know.
As I understand it (warning - my facts may not be correct) AmigaDOS
has a pretty low throughput and can not keep up with fast hard
disks.  This is supposedly why current hard disks for the A1000
are not as fast as IBM (or is that CBM PC-10) PC hard disks.  I also
have heard that the Commodore-supplied RAM: driver "bypasses" a lot
of AmigaDOS so that it can get extra speed.  So the question is,
(a) will Commodore be providing an upgraded AmigaDOS that has improved
speed for hard disks, (b) will CBM write a HD Handler that will bypass
AmigaDOS to get full speed, or (c) will developers such as ASDG write
their own handlers to get full speed hard disk performance?

Final note:  In the business section of a certain newspaper there
recently was an advertisement for the Commodore PC-10.  Their
slogan:  "Its not just another Clone.... Its a Commodore!".
Don't use this for the Amiga, please...

-- Dan Green

-- 
ARPA:  hsgj%vax2.ccs.cornell.edu@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
UUCP:  ihnp4!cornell!batcomputer!hsgj   BITNET:  hsgj@cornella

grr@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (George Robbins) (04/27/87)

In article <814@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> hsgj@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Dan Green) writes:
>
>Here is a question for Perry of ASDG in particular, of interest
>to other hard disk developers, and for Commodore in general.
>The Amiga 2000 has this large hole in the front of the machine
>that is supposed to be for a hard disk.  Will ASDG's new
>hard disk fit inside this hole?  I sure hope that this product,
>and any other hard drives, are internal, as the Amiga 2000 seems
>big enough as is.

As I understand it, ASDG's hard disk controller is a board level product that
will be offered in both the "zorro" and A2000 board form factors.  I don't know
if he will be offering a hard disk with the board.

The A2000 has mounting points for 3 drives.  Two are 3.5" size, one of which
will normally be occupied by a floppy, and one is 5.25" size, suitable for
either a half-height hard drive or a 5.25" floppy for the PC bridge card.

There is also and external MAC+ SCSI compatible connector on the rear of the
Commodore Hard Disk Controller card for hooking up externally mounted disks.
I don't know if ASDG will have this feature.
-- 
George Robbins - now working for,	uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing	arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV
Commodore, Engineering Department	fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)

andy@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (04/27/87)

In article <814@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> hsgj@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Dan Green) writes:
>
>Now here's the question for Commodore or other parties in the know.
>I also have heard that the Commodore-supplied RAM: driver "bypasses" a lot
>of AmigaDOS so that it can get extra speed.
It doesn't really bypass AmigaDOS...rather the RAM: handler has its
own file handler which is quite a bit faster because it makes some
assumptions about its physical media.
>So the question is,
>(a) will Commodore be providing an upgraded AmigaDOS that has improved
>speed for hard disks, (b) will CBM write a HD Handler that will bypass
>AmigaDOS to get full speed, or (c) will developers such as ASDG write
>their own handlers to get full speed hard disk performance?
We are currently doing bug-wringing on a filesystem handler for
hard disks, that knows a bit about hard disks, and is able to
get increased performance.  (It works with the current AmigaDOS 1.2,
through AmigaDOS's ability to use alternate filesystems)
(That answers (a) and (b), I suppose.  When ?  Ah..in the fullness
of time, at the appropriate juncture, in..., no, seriously, when
we trust it.) 
>
>-- Dan Green



-- 
andy finkel		{ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy 
Commodore/Amiga		 /or/ pyramid!amiga!andy }

"Do not meddle with the affairs of wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard 
to light."

Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share.
I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.

daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (04/27/87)

in article <814@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, hsgj@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Dan Green) says:
> Keywords: Harddisks Amiga2000 AmigaDOS

> Now here's the question for Commodore or other parties in the know.
> As I understand it (warning - my facts may not be correct) AmigaDOS
> has a pretty low throughput and can not keep up with fast hard
> disks.  This is supposedly why current hard disks for the A1000
> are not as fast as IBM (or is that CBM PC-10) PC hard disks.  I also
> have heard that the Commodore-supplied RAM: driver "bypasses" a lot
> of AmigaDOS so that it can get extra speed.  

When most people refer to AmigaDOS being slow, they're referring instead to
a few certain aspects of the current File System Handler.  Based on the way
that the current File System Handler stores directory entries, searching
for a file based on a wild-card description or listing out a full directory
are very much slower than the equivalent under MS-DOS.  Finding a known
file via a pathname, however, is very fast, based on the same structural
reasons.  And most of the other features fall somewhere in-between.  The
floppy drives, most hard disk drivers, and Perry's VD0: are all device 
drivers that use the floppy File System Handler as is.  The RAM: device,
however, is a totally different animal, comprised of a completely different
file handler (apparently all one piece -- you can't access the RAM disk as
an Exec device like you can the trackdisk.device for floppies or other
similar drivers that use the floppy file system handler).  The advantage to
this is that this handler can know more about the device its dealing with
than a general purpose handler, and it can even store files internally in a
different structure if desired to make things go faster.  The disadvantage
to an alternate handler is that there are far more commands for a handler
to implement than a device driver, so there alot more room for compatibility
problems.  The RAM: device, however, is not bypassing AmigaDOS at all, its
just hooked into AmigaDOS at a handler, rather than device, level.n

> Final note:  In the business section of a certain newspaper there
> recently was an advertisement for the Commodore PC-10.  Their
> slogan:  "Its not just another Clone.... Its a Commodore!".
> Don't use this for the Amiga, please...
> 
> -- Dan Green

A2000: Its not a PC Clone, its a Computer!
-- 
Dave Haynie     Commodore-Amiga    Usenet: {ihnp4|caip|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh
"The A2000 Guy"                    BIX   : hazy
	"These are the days of miracle and wonder" -P. Simon

dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (04/28/87)

>When most people refer to AmigaDOS being slow, they're referring instead to
>a few certain aspects of the current File System Handler.  Based on the way
>..

	(1) If AmigaDOS were to sort the blocks when a user does an ExNext
	call, a directory listing would not be slow slow 

	(2) If AmigaDOS were to cache whatever-the-hell it's tracking back
	for (when reading and writing LARGE files.. as in >30K)... 
	tic tic tic traaack traack tic tic tic traack traack, then file load
	time would almost double, and file save time would also almost double.


	Fix the easy stuff first, I say.


				-Matt

ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (04/30/87)

In article <8704281918.AA08964@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes:
>	(2) If AmigaDOS were to cache whatever-the-hell it's tracking back
>	for (when reading and writing LARGE files.. as in >30K)... 
>	tic tic tic traaack traack tic tic tic traack traack, then file load
>	time would almost double, and file save time would also almost double.
>			  ^^^^^^				       ^^^^^^
	Er, um...  Don't you mean halve?  Yeah, of course you do....

	BTW, AmigaDOS doesn't need to cache file control blocks.  Every data
block points to the next data block, if any.  Someone at MetaComCo was
asleep at the editor, I'd say...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Leo L. Schwab				ihnp4!ptsfa!well!ewhac
The Guy in The Cape				..or..
					well ---\
"Work FOR?  I don't work FOR		dual ----> !unicom!ewhac
anybody.  I'm just having fun."		hplabs -/       ("AE-wack")

dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (04/30/87)

:>	time would almost double, and file save time would also almost double.
:>			  ^^^^^^				       ^^^^^^
:	Er, um...  Don't you mean halve?  Yeah, of course you do....

	Whoops..  Right.  I meant 'halve'.

				-Matt