🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2064@homxc.UUCP> jdn@homxc.UUCP (J.NAGY) writes:
>In article <2862@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, braner@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (braner) writes:
>> 
>> The raw GEMDOS functions are faster (due to
>> no buffering) but you should set up your own buffering.  
>
>I don't quite understand this.  If I have to do my own buffering with
>Fread, while fread does the buffering for me, then the fread call
>appears easier to use.  And since the application has to buffer Fread
>calls itself, any speed advantage of Fread (due to no buffering!) is
>negated. So I can see no advantage to the Fread.
>

	I wondered about this also, for some time.  Then I decided to
	test it out.  A friend and I each wrote the same program, but
	I used the capital F calls, and he the lower case f calls.  I
	even put more bells and whistles into my program, and the speed
	is significantly higher, even accounting for the fact that I
	have to do my own buffering and managing.

	8K to 16K are the best speeds, to get the most out of your
	floppies.  I haven't done any tests to see how much difference
	buffer size makes on a hard disk (my Supra died!).

						\          /
Disclaimer:  I'm not associated			 \  /\    /arner
	with the latest revision		  \/  \__/
	of SANITY.				         |oung
						     \___|
Last known address: c9c-eh@dorothy.Berkeley.EDU
			or
		    ucbvax!dorothy!c9c-eh