Date:	Fri, 11 Nov 1994 04:43:48 -0800
From:	John Nemeth <jnemeth AT cue DOT bc DOT ca>
To:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>,
	Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT new-orleans DOT neosoft DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Disk I/O rates with DJGPP
Cc:	Martin AT snsystems DOT co DOT uk, djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu

On Nov 7,  8:54am, "Eli Zaretskii" wrote:
} Subject: Re: Disk I/O rates with DJGPP
} >> What I would like to point out is that performance penalty for using
} >> DJGPP is really not so bad.  (27 seconds vs 16 seconds)
} >
} > Well, I disagree.  It's like taking that nice new high speed SCSI drive
} > and turning it into an MFM drive when running under DJGPP.  That's why
} 
} For the person who actually tries to squeeze maximum performance from
} DJGPP I would expect you to disagree.  However, this SCSI -> MFM thing
} is a great, *great*, GREAT exaggeration.  And I did mention that we
} indeed should make I/O faster.  I do maintain, though, that 10 more
} seconds is not such a long time to wait, even if you just bought this
} great ACME SCSI-II drive...

     I disagree.  Of course, I'm another person that tried to squeeze
maximum performance out of DJGPP.  For some applications, I/O
performance is extremely important.  One of the main reasons I was
using DJGPP was precisely because I needed to handle large amounts of
data fast.

}-- End of excerpt from "Eli Zaretskii"

- Raw text -