dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) (03/19/91)
Can someone please tell me some more info on addbuffers (or point me to where I could find it?) Specifically: 1. the name would imply that it is a cumulative operation. Ie, that two "addbuffers df0: 5"'s is the same as 1 "addbuffers df0: 10". Is this true? 2. What is the default # of buffers you get without any "addbuffers" call at all? I was just reading my 1.3 enhancer guide (or whatever it's called) last night, and saw where it says having 25-30 buffers really speeds up disk performance. Naturally, I haven't touched my startup-sequence in this regard since I had no idea it made a significant difference. Which leads me to my final question: 3. Does it really make a large difference to have 25-30 buffers? What is the point of diminishing returns? I can definitely afford to spare 10K if it's going to speed up my disk access by a noticable amount. "The silly things they do write in books these days..." -Sniffles -- Dave Schaumann | dave@cs.arizona.edu | Short .sig's rule!
jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) (03/21/91)
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes: >Can someone please tell me some more info on addbuffers (or point me to where >I could find it?) >Specifically: > 1. the name would imply that it is a cumulative operation. Ie, that Yes it is. Under 2.x you can even "AddBuffers df0: -10" to remove buffers > 2. What is the default # of buffers you get without any "addbuffers" > call at all? Depends on the device. Default for floppies is 5. "mount"ed devices and harddrives may have a different default. >I was just reading my 1.3 enhancer guide (or whatever it's called) last night, >and saw where it says having 25-30 buffers really speeds up disk performance. Yes it makes a big difference. As to the number of buffers, it depends on what filesystem you are using. For a floppy drive using the OldFileSystem ( which you are doing), then 25-30 buffers is about right. I have not benchmarked things to see if more buffers helps, but it does not seem to help much. With a hard disk and the FastFileSystem, generally the more buffers the better.
pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) (03/21/91)
I've noticed that addbuffers always seems to use chip ram, I've even tried running fastmemfirst and it still uses chip ram. Is there any way to get addbuffers to use fast ram? -- Pete Babic - pab@po.cwru.edu /// I'd rather be SKIING!! | /// /\ Member of A.C.E. | \\\ /// /--\MIGA (American Coaster Enthusiasts) | \\\/// The future is here now!
UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) (03/21/91)
While a valiant try in its time ,Addbuffers is just not worth it today.
To speed up floppies, buy FaccII. Usually less than $20. Much smarter,
much more flexible than Addbuffers.
leesbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) (03/21/91)
pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) writes: > I've noticed that addbuffers always seems to use chip ram, I've even tried > running fastmemfirst and it still uses chip ram. Is there any way to get > addbuffers to use fast ram? While this probably won't help, I think that Addbuffers in Workbench 2.0 uses fast ram. Is this correct? -- Sleeping Beagle (aka Thomas Farmer) sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz The Kennels Ph. +64-4-796306 (voice) 25 Awarua St, Ngaio, Wellington, New Zealand. "You ain't nothin' but a Hound Dog."
David.Plummer@f70.n140.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Plummer) (03/29/91)
SB> pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) writes:
SB>
SB> > I've noticed that addbuffers always seems to use chip ram, I've
SB> even tried
SB> > running fastmemfirst and it still uses chip ram. Is there any way
SB> to get
SB> > addbuffers to use fast ram?
SB>
SB> While this probably won't help, I think that Addbuffers in Workbench
SB> 2.0
SB> uses fast ram.
SB>
SB> Is this correct?
SB>
It would make more sense to me that AddBuffers uses the type of RAM
required by the device for buffers (see BuffMemType in your mountlist).
Floppy drives use the Agnus and therefore require buffer memory in Chip.
Hard drives don't and therefore get their buffer memory in Fast. It
all depends on how the flag is set in the device structure.
My best guess, anyway.
--
David Plummer - via FidoNet node 1:140/22
UUCP: ...!herald!weyr!70!David.Plummer
Domain: David.Plummer@f70.n140.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Standard Disclaimers Apply...erk@americ.UUCP (Erick Parsons) (04/03/91)
>In article <142.27F42C78@weyr.FIDONET.ORG> David.Plummer@f70.n140.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Plummer) writes: > > SB> pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) writes: > SB> > SB> > I've noticed that addbuffers always seems to use chip ram, I've > SB> even tried > SB> > running fastmemfirst and it still uses chip ram. Is there any way > SB> to get > SB> > addbuffers to use fast ram? > >It would make more sense to me that AddBuffers uses the type of RAM >required by the device for buffers (see BuffMemType in your mountlist). >Floppy drives use the Agnus and therefore require buffer memory in Chip. > Hard drives don't and therefore get their buffer memory in Fast. It >all depends on how the flag is set in the device structure. > >My best guess, anyway. I just refired up an old friend, FaccII by ASDG. It's a floppy disk buffer cache with low memory deallocation protection. It set's it's buffers in Fast Ram. -- Erick Parsons, Sacramento erick@sactoh0.sac.ca.us <-- Right off the freeway -- {ames att sun }!pacbell!sactoh0!pacengr!americ!erk <-- At the end of the road --