Article View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc
Article #185Re: Cacheing Hard Disk Controllers
From: Patrick Hall
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 00:00
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 00:00
36 lines
3045 bytes
3045 bytes
Rod May (stoke@werple.mira.net.au) wrote: : The point is if you're going to pay for memory, give the operating system : the chance to use it in a flexible way, depending on its workload. : Linux will use it intelligently. : People who buy cached disk controllers and get all excited about the : disk bench mark test don't seem to realise that all this exciting : I/O is pointless when the extra memory may have avoided the need for : an I/O in the first place, eg swapping................ Personally, I use a caching controller - and I fully realize that hardware caching over an ISA bus is quite a bit slower than software caching. However, when using multiple operating systems, depending on what I'm doing, I _always_ know that I have a good, solid cache that cannot be corrupted by whatever application, operating system, beta driver, or whatever else I happen to be doing. In addition, it's a very good choice after you've maxed the memory on your computer out - what do you do, if your application and operating system requires all the memory the MB can handle, and you still want a cache? Additionally, a caching controller doesn't need to bother with using CPU cycles, system RAM for the program, or anything else like that - it (should) all be taken care of by the CPU and\or ASIC on the controller board, rendering it, in my opinion, more reliable than software caches. As a final point, hardware caching is something that the software you run doesn't even know exists, and can't tell if it exists or not (for all it knows, your whole hard drive could be flash memory with a SCSI, IDE, ESDI, MFM, RLL, or whatever interface - if it even knows what interface it is!), much less see any of the code (assuming the code would even run on the main CPU, which isn't likely in many cases). Therefore, said cache doesn't conflict with any software in your system. Basically, the point is that a software cache is faster, and a hardware cache is truly transparent - effectively not there, as far as any system software goes. Patrick Hall phall@umr.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<41617i$ic2@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<3vn231$7fp@cleese.apana.org.au> <3vu9tr$2er@aimnet1.aimnet.com> <5rPFb5roUjB@irata.Jena.Thur.De> <408nqk$hjf@aimnet1.aimnet.com> <DD1Gu9.KwH@news.cern.ch> <40c86u$143@werple03.mira.net.au>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10d683,87705628d8f7e5d9 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d683,public X-Google-Thread: 109e38,87705628d8f7e5d9 X-Google-Attributes: gid109e38,public X-Google-Thread: f4d7c,87705628d8f7e5d9 X-Google-Attributes: gidf4d7c,public From: phall@saucer.cc.umr.edu (Patrick Hall) Subject: Re: Cacheing Hard Disk Controllers Date: 1995/08/20 Message-ID: <41617i$ic2@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> X-Deja-AN: 108477760 references: <3vn231$7fp@cleese.apana.org.au> <3vu9tr$2er@aimnet1.aimnet.com> <5rPFb5roUjB@irata.Jena.Thur.De> <408nqk$hjf@aimnet1.aimnet.com> <DD1Gu9.KwH@news.cern.ch> <40c86u$143@werple03.mira.net.au> followup-to: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,aus.computers.ibm-pc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage organization: UMR Missouri's Technological University newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,aus.computers.ibm-pc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage