🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul28.205204.482@glocke.hotb.sub.org> frank@glocke.hotb.sub.org  
(Frank Thomas) writes:
> In article <1992Jul25.195150.4262@mksol.dseg.ti.com>  
> dahla@mksol.dseg.ti.com (alexander dahl) writes:
> > Am I just dreaming or what.  But to get something off of the
> > net I must FTP to a PeeCee machine.  To get it to mine is
> > via Floppy Net.
> > 
> > I cannot imagine that it would be that BIG of a deal to    
> > pass out the "new, faster" DOS driver for the NeXT floppy.
> > 
> > Did I miss something along the way or did NeXT just decide
> > that everyone was greatfully enjoyed with a disk drive that
> > is slower than a Sinclair floppy?
> > 
> Even worse: If you copy a big file TO the floppy it gets slower every  
> track! The 'TimeMon' reports that the machine has little load, while every  
> application seams to be not very responsive. I thought it looks like this  
> guy is using very much VM but with 'ps' everything looks ok.
> I have only 8-Meg. BTW: the interleave factor makes a big difference!
> Formatting a disk on NeXT is much better than one from a PC.
> I hope this changed in 3.0. (Any 3.0 guy likes to comment on this?)
> 
> 
> Frank
> -----
> fatal error: no .signature

Since I've seen so much bashing about the NeXT's DOS floppy driver here, I feel
the need to add at least another data point: I used to have a SparcStation on
my desk, and I used MS-DOS floppies quite regularly. At least with SunOSes up
to 4.0.1, performance on the MS-DOS FS was extremely poor. Copying a full 1.4
MB to an MS-DOS disk took ~12 minutes. BTW, the SCSI-driver is a similar thing.
I had the same HDDs on the Sparc (SS1) which I have pon the NeXT. On the Sparc
I got between 560 and 820 KB/second using iozone 1.0. On the NeXT it's between
620 and 890 KB/sec. That's not too much compared to a PeeCee, but the PeeCee
can't do anything else while it's IO'ing :-).

--
Volker Herminghaus-Shirai (vhs@darkcube.radig.de)

If I had intel inside(tm), I'd throw up...