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

[Sbehrens@contech.demon.co.uk (Soenke Behrens)]

Jawaid,

In article: <bazyarD50vpF.sx@netcom.com>  bazyar@netcom.com (Jawaid Bazyar) 
writes:
>   More useful benchmarks are: boot time with and without accelerator,
> time to copy many small files, time to boot GNO, etc. "Real-life"
> applications.

Yeah, this occured to me already. I was thinking of asking the GEnie folks 
(who are now in a speed-testing frenzy :) to do exactly that, to get some 
frame of reference.

> it's 1MB/sec period.  So, in more common situations, the RamFAST's
> average throughput will be between 512K/sec and 1MB/sec. In ProDOS
> 8, it's almost always 1MB/sec :)

Well, yeah, since in P8 more often than not your data will fit snugly into 
the 1MB cache RAM. However, I was using P8 solely for PT 3.1, and since 
Spectrum 2.0, I don't even do that any more. So, P8 performance doesn't 
interest me :)

>   If I ever get a chance to work on the RamFAST's firmware, an "easy"
> fix would be to transfer large blocks that will obviously thrash the
> cache straight from disk to Apple memory. This can be done with the
> RamFAST's hardware.

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?

Yours
Soenke

-- 
Standard disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer