home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!caen!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!terapin!fmlin
- From: fmlin@terapin.com (Frank M. Lin)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
- Subject: re: RamFAST & GS/OS cache
- Message-ID: <fmlin.2bnm@terapin.com>
- Date: 22 Nov 92 12:45:36 PST
- Organization: BBS
- Lines: 28
-
- >Drew's position on this is that the method the RamFast currently uses
- >is faster than it would be if he supported GS/OS caching. This is
- >because the GS/OS cache has to (a) find the block by searching a list,
- >and (b) manually move the block to the caller. So for data blocks the
- >GS/OS cache is generally going to be slower than the RamFast unless
- >you have a very fast Zip.
-
- Hmm, I don't know if I get that. GS/OS cache in already in memory, I don't see
- how reading data from the SCSI device, then copy RF's cache to GS memory will
- be faster then just reading/moving the GS/OS cache already in memory. Besides,
- I have a quick TWGS ( 15 ) here :)
-
- >But for directory blocks, the GS/OS cache makes a lot of sense _IF_
- >the FST's are smart enough to directly search for them in the cache
- >rather than calling the driver and forcing a manual copy into the
- >FST's own memory (which is also usually going to be slower than just
- >blasting the block in from the RamFast).
-
- This make sense, maybe the Apple II CEG should add this to the 6.0.1
- enhancement list. Since this feauture will improve GS/OS cache is self, and
- not just help RF.
-
- Still, I see no reason why Drew shouldn't add GS/OS cache support; unless his
- time is needed on other R&D work.
-
- frank m. lin
- fmlin@terapin.com
-
-