pawn@wpi.wpi.edu (Kevin Goroway) (02/16/89)
Is there any reason to add a MaxTransfer to a mountlist if the drive works fine without it? Is there a possibility of a speed INCREASE with it? thanks... Pawn@wpi.bitnet Pawn@wpi.wpi.edu
w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (02/17/89)
pawn@wpi.wpi.edu (Kevin Goroway) wrote: > Is there any reason to add a MaxTransfer to a mountlist if the drive works > fine without it? Is there a possibility of a speed INCREASE with it? NO. Well, maybe with *really* screwed-up driver software, but all MaxTransfer does is compensate for a common bug in device driver software, an upper limit on data-transfer request size. The old FS would only read and write a block at a time, so as long as your driver could hanle that, everything would work. The FFS tries to send large single requests, and some .device drivers broke. Thus, the kludge in the FFS. If your .device driver can handle them, large requests are invariably faster than multiple small ones, and you should let the FFS use them. >> MaxTransfer is a kludge and will go away when << >>.device driver writers get their acts together.<< Oops... that's maybe a bit more forceful than necessary. But you get the idea. -- -Colin (uunet!microsoft!w-colinp) "Don't listen to me. I never do."