home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!tools!fl
- From: fl@tools.de (Frank Lancaster)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.tech
- Subject: Re: adfsbuffers
- Message-ID: <FL.92Dec21130356@pierre.tools.de>
- Date: 21 Dec 92 14:03:56 GMT
- References: <1992Dec18.113330@informatik.uni-kl.de>
- <1992Dec20.011534.5366@cs.aukuni.ac.nz>
- Organization: Tools GmbH, Bonn, Germany
- Lines: 24
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pierre.tools.de
- In-reply-to: jwil1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz's message of 20 Dec 92 01:15:34 GMT
-
- In article <1992Dec20.011534.5366@cs.aukuni.ac.nz> jwil1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (TMOTA) writes:
-
- > That is, I
- > get the impression that setting a large value for ADFSBuffers will NOT
- > have ANY effect on a SINGLE file, but using (e.g.) 256 buffers will allow
- > up to 256 files to be buffered simultaneously.
- > A value like 8 or 16 will probably be plenty - this will allow pretty much
- > all the files you ca expect to be open at any time to be buffered.
-
- Actually adfsbuffers does have a dramatic effect on reading
- and writing a single file. Using my RISC OS tar for a large hard disc
- backup with compression, I normally set adfsbuffers to 255. Then
- writing to the disc happens in the background and the compression
- of a file can begin before the preceeding file has been completely
- written to disc. This also works under taskwindows, so you get
- somewhat better preemptive multitasking.
-
- Alas there seems to be some kind of bug in the filing system as
- it sometimes causes the machine to hang (and that gets really awful
- if the disc maps are just being written). So if I'm doing a complete
- backup of my hard disc I use the raw disc writing option in tar
- which uses ADFS_DiscOp and avoids adfsbuffers.
-
- -- Frank Lancaster, fl@tools.de
-