Newsgroup: it.comp.os.os2
Titolo: che bravi i dirigenti IBM...

Quello della cache di hpfs e' stato sempre un vero disastro ,fin da
prima ho usato 
l'hpfs386 pero' adesso che ho il disco dell' ibm con 2Mb di cache
integrata sarebbe veramente anacronistico usare solo 2Mb di ram
(attualmente ne uso 32).
Comunque non ho mai capito perche nessuno abbia fatto un ifs migliore di
hpfs visto che esistono tutti i tool possibili
immaginabili(os/2->linux,linux->OS2,dos->os2,ecc ecc).
Giulia 
-- 
 
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.3i
mQBtAzTy/2AAAAEDAONDe9aKLgg9VnfWMV9VsTANTLlMMpRIH6okPVvJiNnbwoYd
VJV9/gNw/dmNGMXJg1izxKaoQWyZn/3mzOnvK8mvk8NL/KfBKd85sttzIOYjQiHV
rT3SPk4g0F+R8yHz3QAFE7QjZ2l1bGlhPGZhcjU4OTNAaXBlcmJvbGUuYm9sb2du
YS5pdD6JAHUDBRA08v9hINBfkfMh890BAXLjAv9SHgyJyxYpLFVFV5IPZbqwQ8fQ
gx+3LacWDFwrCdpdZOQtIEba4Cc1qWDY3AzYHBBBKhLD2OVnDyJDGeW+fnfZEOXd
kb2JvytEleDAw7pP/zsH8xj6WwbWu6gzjXPjk5s=
=W/hV
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Si commenta da solo:
-------------
 Subject: Re: Thoughts on HPFS 2MB cache limit...
 From: 
azza...@bigfoot.com
 (
azza...@bigfoot.com
)
 
 In article <Bd1D8ggkpXsj-pn2-E5JYTOKYu4Ey@Tobias>,
   NOSPAM...@S-t.De (Ruediger Ihle) wrote:
 > On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:30:06, 
dunm...@direct.ca
 (Duncan Munro) wrote:
 >
 > > IIRC an IBM programmer named Doug Arizito (sp?) was working on an
 > > enhanced 16bit based HPFS IFS driver, but for some reason it was
 never
 > > implemented.
 >
 > His name is Doug Azzarito. Back in 1996, I saw him demoing a FAT-to-
 HPFS
 >
 > converter, which also was never released. I don't know, if he is
 still
 > working for IBM ...
 
 Nope. I've been out of IBM for 3 years now. For those who must know,
 here's the story. In my spare time, I developed a 64MB cache controller
 for the existing 16-bit HPFS. Yeah, dealing with 64MB of cache in 16-
 bit code is a pain, but since the IFS in OS/2 was going to stay 16-bit,
 I decided NOT to convert the filesystem to 32-bit (probably a stupid
 decision). I made the cache variable size (you could change it on the
 fly via the CACHE command), and put in a bunch of performance tweaks to
 help offset the penalty of dealing with all that memory. I even added
 code so you could work with file sizes up to a terabyte. I gave it to
 the IBM testers, who found that it was just a bit slower than the old
 code when using less than 2MB cache (as predicted), but it would
 increase performance significantly if you gave it more RAM for cache. I
 couldn't match the raw performance of the 386-HPFS (which was 32-bit
 assembler, and used ever speed trick in the book), but it was close.
 
 I hoped to see this code used in OS/2 release 4, but the folks who make
 these decisions said it would be too expensive to test it and add it to
 the release. I gave them my source code, but I doubt they did anything
 with it. I'm sure someone has one of the test versions of the code (I
 don't keep anything), so someone may be able to show it actually
 working.
 
 --
 Doug Azzarito
 ex OS/2 developer
-- 
bye
Alessandro Cantatore
email reply to: alexcant at: 
tin.it
http://acsoft.ghostbbs.cx

 immaginabili(os/2->linux,linux->OS2,dos->os2,ecc ecc).
per tanti motivi, forse il primo e` che HPFS e` scritto in buona
parte in assembler... difficile eguagliare le prestazioni di un programma
scritto in assebler scrivendo in C...
-- 
ciao, Mirco.
Business search engine:
http://www.azinet.it

 hpfs visto che esistono tutti i tool possibili
Beh, a parte la cache, cosa gli cambieresti???
Obelix

  working.
pero' furbo anche lui, cacchio, poteva tenerseli i sorgenti..... 
Obelix