🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <dpn2.65.721007601@po.CWRU.Edu>, dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
|> In article <Bx9ME2.H40@voder.nsc.com> pad@galaxy.nsc.com (Paul Denny x8349) writes:
|> >As a starter I note that caching disc controllers
|> >are supposed to increase the speed of disc intensive
|> >applications but a salesman I spoke to 8^) claimed
|> >that these are flakey designs as a single bad bit
|> >can propogate through your data and corrupt it. He
|> >suggested additional system RAM and partition it
|> >in DOS to have a large cache area. Can anyone verify
|> >or debunk this and provide an explanation?
|> 
|> I do not have the good fortune to own a caching disk controller, but I have 
|> heard only good things about them. Perhaps the RAM would cost more than the 
|> controller, giving the salesman more profits? :-)

  I dunno WHAT the salesman was trying to tell you...but here's MHO on the
  the subject.  Caching controllers are great... but they cost more than
  /standard/ controllers.  What I'd do is buy a /standard/ controller, a
  faster access/throughput drive, and more system ram.  This way YOU have
  control of how the RAM is being used.  For example...if you're using OS/2,
  Windows or UN*X you'll wish you had just a little bit more system RAM than
  you have (no matter how much you have).  If it's locked up on the disk
  controller the disk controller is the ONLY thing that can use that ram.  If
  it's on the system you can decided for yourself if you want it to do disk
  caching or anything else.  To make a long story short "if you get a caching
  disk controller YOU LOSE THE OPTION of where the memory gets used."



  				-Jeffrey E. Hundstad
				AS/400 Sys. Admin.
				Mankato State University
				Mankato, MN USA

<TcpSend Error spelling and punctuation errors may have been inserted.>