exodus@uop.edu (G.Onufer) (04/18/88)
Well, as much as I love the performance of TurboDOS, I will not use it until one matter is straightened out. I just added the original Tandem drive from my SH204 to the Micropolis drive I had replaced it with. Now both are merrily storing all the data I give to them off of the SH204 controller board. So I thought I would do some timings of TurboDOS/non-Turbo- DOS. I copied the TeX sources from SCSI-1/LUN0/PARTf to SCSI-1/LUN1/PARTc (actually f: to g:) and timed em. Took 2:34 sec with Beckemeyer's HD accel, took 2:06 sec with TurboDOS. Except fsck tells me it's okay the long way and that there is a free clustor smack in the middle of a file the fast way. (oh...those should be MINUTES times, not seconds :-) So, is this a problem with having two drives on one controller? Depending on how much TurboDOS assumes about the hardware configuration, it may scrap the LUN number in its caching. Time to actually go through the code and start replacing addresses with labels and adding comments.......Ughhh. Also, I would not recommend using any disk repair utilities that directly access the drives while using Turbodos. May really screw things up if and when Turbodos flushes its buffers. Allen: Any way to force a program such as TurboDOS to flush it's buffers? Write a desk acc to do it? (Add symbolic links to the next TOS!!) G. Onufer
sreeb@pnet01.cts.com (Ed Beers) (04/19/88)
exodus@uop.edu (G.Onufer) writes: > >Well, as much as I love the performance of TurboDOS, I will not use it >until one matter is straightened out. I just added the original Tandem >drive from my SH204 to the Micropolis drive I had replaced it with. Now >both are merrily storing all the data I give to them off of the SH204 >controller board. So I thought I would do some timings of TurboDOS/non-Turbo- >DOS. I copied the TeX sources from SCSI-1/LUN0/PARTf to SCSI-1/LUN1/PARTc >(actually f: to g:) and timed em. Took 2:34 sec with Beckemeyer's HD accel, >took 2:06 sec with TurboDOS. Except fsck tells me it's okay the long way and >that there is a free clustor smack in the middle of a file the fast way. >(oh...those should be MINUTES times, not seconds :-) > >So, is this a problem with having two drives on one controller? Depending >on how much TurboDOS assumes about the hardware configuration, it may scrap >the LUN number in its caching. Time to actually go through the code and >start replacing addresses with labels and adding comments.......Ughhh. > >Also, I would not recommend using any disk repair utilities that directly >access the drives while using Turbodos. May really screw things up if and when >Turbodos flushes its buffers. > >Allen: Any way to force a program such as TurboDOS to flush it's buffers? >Write a desk acc to do it? (Add symbolic links to the next TOS!!) > >G. Onufer I am a little suspicious of fsck and its companion optimizer. I had a hard disk partion that fsck and chkdsk ( using pc-ditto ) both liked. I used the optimizer after which: fsck was still happy. all my files were still accessable from gem. pc-ditto could no longer see several of my directories. chkdsk attempted to repair the disk and appeared to be success full. fsck was no longer happy and i had about 2 meg of file which took up space but were invisable from gem. I zapped the partion, restored all the files and haven't had any problems since. UUCP: {cbosgd hplabs!hp-sdd sdcsvax nosc}!crash!pnet01!sreeb ARPA: crash!pnet01!sreeb@nosc.mil INET: sreeb@pnet01.cts.com
exodus@uop.edu (G.Onufer) (04/20/88)
From article <2844@crash.cts.com>, by sreeb@pnet01.cts.com (Ed Beers): > exodus@uop.edu (G.Onufer) writes: >> >>Well, as much as I love the performance of TurboDOS, I will not use it > > I am a little suspicious of fsck and its companion optimizer. I had a hard > disk partion that fsck and chkdsk ( using pc-ditto ) both liked. I used the I also used DLII to check the partition. It didn't like what happened too much either..... DO NOT USE TurboDOS, Public Domain or not. It may not work with any strange hardware configurations (such as two drives on one controller). G. Onufer
wolf@csclea.ncsu.edu (Thomas Wolf) (04/22/88)
Am I the exception or something? I've been using TurboDos for over a
week now and never had any trouble. Of course, my system isn't configured
in an "exotic" fashion; just a plain 1040ST with Supra 20Meg. I don't
use any other caching program while TurboDos is loaded, because of the
warnings against that. Also, whenever I power the system up, I
automatically enter GULAM (using GEMSTART in the AUTO folder), AND before
powering down, I exit GULAM -- this, I imagine will close all remaining
open files and flush buffers that TurboDos keeps.
Anyway, I just thought I'd proclaim that there ARE folks who've not yet
been disappointed by TurboDos.
Tom Wolf
Tom Wolf
ARPA (I think): tw@cscosl.ncsu.edu
or wolf@csclea.ncsu.edu