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