Article View: comp.sys.sun
Article #6361Re: Myths about tape block sizes
From: Lars P. Fischer
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 1991 00:37
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 1991 00:37
12 lines
1164 bytes
1164 bytes
>>>>> On 31 Dec 90 17:28:40 GMT, dan@breeze.bellcore.com (Daniel Strick) said: Daniel> There is no universally optimum buffer size. True. It's strange. People keep telling that I should use the default, that all sort of horrible things will happen otherwise, that the default is faster anyway, etc. On all the various platforms I've tried, I have found something faster, and I've yet to see problems. I often use 2000 for block size, and it tends to be *much* faster that the default (a factor of three or so). It worked in '85, in worked three days ago, and it probably still does.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1101@brchh104.bnr.ca>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!brtph3!brchh104!brchs1!bnr.ca!rice.edu!sun-spots-requestShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!brtph3!brchh104!brchs1!bnr.ca!rice.edu!sun-spots-request From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun Subject: Re: Myths about tape block sizes Keywords: Miscellaneous Message-ID: <1101@brchh104.bnr.ca> Date: 9 Jan 91 00:37:20 GMT Sender: news@brchh104.bnr.ca Organization: Sun-Spots Lines: 12 Approved: Sun-Spots@rice.edu X-Refs: Original: v9n405, Replies: v9n414 X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 11, message 12 X-Note: Submissions: sun-spots@rice.edu, Admin: sun-spots-request@rice.edu