Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!ames!cit-vax!news
From: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Usenet netnews)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.periphs
Subject: Re: Lot's of questions
Message-ID: <1435@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: Tue, 6-Jan-87 11:36:13 EST
Article-I.D.: cit-vax.1435
Posted: Tue Jan  6 11:36:13 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Jan-87 22:36:32 EST
References: <9073FIB@PSUVM> <2750@osu-eddie.UUCP> <434@catnip.UUCP> <551@brl-sem.ARPA> <1029@cad.cs.cmu.edu> <1987@tekgvs.UUCP>
Reply-To: tim@tomcat.UUCP (Tim Kay)
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 23
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.ibm.pc:809 comp.periphs:103

Organization : California Institute of Technology
Keywords: 
From: tim@tomcat.Caltech.Edu (Tim Kay)
Path: tomcat!tim

Thomas Almy writes (about Bernoulli Boxes):
>
>Drivers that read and write a single sector at a time run REAL slow, hardly
>faster than a floppy, because of those seeks.  When full track buffering is
>performed (I buffered several tracks) then the performace is that of a slow
>hard disk with full track buffering!  Which, by the way, is much faster than
>a fast hard disk without track buffering.

I can see how this would work for reading.  Rather than read a single sector,
you might as well read the entire track and put it in a disk cache.  However,
when writing, you can't wait for the entire track because you might not get
it.  Do you cache writes to the current track until a seek is performed to a
different track?  A cache that is not write-through makes me nervous.

Timothy L. Kay				tim@csvax.caltech.edu
Department of Computer Science
Caltech, 256-80
Pasadena, CA  91125