klm@gozer.UUCP (Kevin [My Amiga has e-mail] McBride) (12/03/89)
I've been reading some articles here recently about how the Commodore
2090A disk controller has "brain damage." What does the new 2091
have that makes it superior, other than being a 2090++?
Would somebody out there who has an informed opinion please tell me
what kind of brain damage?
I have had my 2090A for about 6 months now and I have not noticed any
such thing. I'm using it to run a Quantum 80S drive and have been
getting very reliable, and reasonably fast ( ~100Kb/s with FFS **)
performance from it. I don't consider this to be brain damaged in
the least.
What gives? And why do some of you not like it? I've had no problems.
** Results using a disk performace utility of my own design. This is
average performance measured writing a 128K byte file in 4K byte
chunks on a moderately fragmented disk. In other words, real world
performance. Of course, If I write in 8K chunks on a completely
fresh filesystem I get more like 240K bytes/sec. The larger the
chunk size, the better the performance. But really, now, who has
uucp software that reads and writes 64K bytes at a time? :-)
--
Kevin L. McBride, President // Amiga: | Brewmeister, VP of tasting,
McBride Software // The computer | and Bottle Washer,
Consulting Group, Inc. \\ // for the | McBeer Home Brewery
uunet!wang!gozer!klm \x/ creative mind | Nashua, NH