Johnson Lam escreveu:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 14:31:04 +0200 (MEST), you wrote:
I'm pretty tired about this topic because Mr. Eric talk a lot but
things still not clear, maybe I'm too stupid.
Sorry, maybe I startedd all this confusion. The fact is that as of my
tests, things are a bit confusing ;-)
Maybe misunderstanding, I remember Alain said after he use UMB,
FreeDOS slowdown a lot and need to use UDMA2 and cache to reclaim the
speed.
I'm sure UDMA or the latest XDMA is NOT a factor of slowdown, nothing
related (in my test or Alain's test), please stop bring two problems
together, thank you.
Where *is* some interaction between UMB and UDMA. But may later tests
show that it does not affect all programs.
I will be spending the following hours today and tomorow trying to
figure out why. I have learned a lot about DOS, BUFFERS and UDMA in the
posts here these last days. Thanks everyone, it will surely help with
the tests
Sorry but Jack have no interest in LBAcache because he use Norton
Cache, so he just care about the integrity of his own program.
As of my tests (I have one user doing a hot test) FreeDOS+LBACache is
reliable. The other advantage is that it is distributable.
He
explained before he follow the proper procedure, and agree with Tom's
analyze, the reason that caused slowdown maybe the int21h requests
accessing the HMA and perform the requests a sector at a time.
Probably
IMO, maybe reduce the BUFFERS=1,0 and try using cache (LBAcache or
others) may improve performance.
Soinds strange, but I will test...
Alain
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
