From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Aug 21 17:44:23 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA22086 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 17:44:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crh.cl.msu.edu (crh.cl.msu.edu [35.8.1.24]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA22081 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 17:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from henrich@localhost) by crh.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA01732; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 20:44:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Henrich Message-Id: <199608220044.UAA01732@crh.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: Curio To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 20:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <19050.840674342@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "Aug 21, 96 05:39:02 pm" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Hmmmm! I have a P6/200 (I *refuse* to call it a Pentium Pro, I simply > refuse! :-) and an old, wheezing 2940 myself. Can you elaborate a little > bit on this? What do you mean when you say "dramatically?" > > I actually need an extra Adaptec anyway (I'm using a Bt946c in another > machine and would like to kick it out) so I'll dash over to the > computer store right now and buy one, if they've any in stock. Well dramatically means windows seem to snap open a little faster, things pop just a bit quicker. The big improvement is when im running xfqcam (which is spin-polling the parallel port), with xfqcam running access to NFS has (had) 2+ second pauses before dashing off and doing the access. Now, snappy, certainly as fast as without xfqcam running, and probably a tad faster. Perhaps the old 2940 was causing lots of interupts it shouldnt have been? In this case YMMV applies very much! -Crh Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@msu.edu http://pilot.msu.edu/~henrich