Re: Shocking: RF SCSI slower than HS SCSI???

[bazyar@netcom.com (Jawaid Bazyar)]

Sbehrens@contech.demon.co.uk (Soenke Behrens) writes:

>Here's one user who would pay for such an update to the firmware. Maybe 
>together with GS/OS caching, tests would have to be done, but I vaguely 
>remember that the RF broke down when copying many small files, or things 
>like that, because its cache cannot possibly know which bits are directory 
>entries that it will need again in a second, so those directory entries get 
>flushed out when the cache fills with data. Or am I spouting half-truths 
>again?

  Yes, that part's correct. Now, if you use the GS/OS cache JUST
for directory blocks, you should be okay. But for anything else...
it's too inefficient. GS/OS's cache is a linked list which is
walked linearly each time a block search occurs. This is why
Vogan didn't support it - it would actually slow down the RamFAST
quite a bit.

-- 
 Jawaid Bazyar              |   Like UNIX? Like your Apple IIGS? Then ask
 Procyon, Inc.              |   me about GNO/ME for the Apple IIgs!   
 bazyar@netcom.com          |   P.O Box 620334    (Sequential: 303-666-4549)
 --Apple II Forever!--      |   Littleton, CO 80162-0334   (303) 781-3273