Post Reply 
PIL-Box throughput
07-13-2015, 11:01 PM (This post was last modified: 07-14-2015 05:05 PM by Christoph Giesselink.)
Post: #3
RE: PIL-Box throughput
(07-13-2015 03:12 AM)Dave Frederickson Wrote:  Perhaps the Write also did a Verify.

Definitely not. :)

The reason is the LIF format itself. The LIF format does not have a File Allocation Table (FAT) like other disc formats, so the free sectors must be extracted from the directory structure by reading all directory entries. This is the additional time spend at writing.

You can make a try, just measure the time writing a file to a quite full LIF image with many directory entries and make another try writing the same file to a newly created empty LIF image. You will get a significant difference, especially on small files.

When optimizing the ILPilbox.exe bridge software JFG gave me the tip for the throughput write measurements to write the data from the HP71 to a non-existing device. For the loop HP71-Pilbox-ILPer:

A=TIME @ COPY file TO :3 @ TIME-A

will do the job. Further, the performance of the ILPer host has also a big influence on the file throughput. I made tests with an old P4/3.2GHz and an 8 core Z600 workstation (2.66GHz nominal, 3.06GHz Turbo mode). The Z600 workstation was over 60% faster.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
PIL-Box throughput - Egan Ford - 07-13-2015, 02:19 AM
RE: PIL-Box throughput - Dave Frederickson - 07-13-2015, 03:12 AM
RE: PIL-Box throughput - Christoph Giesselink - 07-13-2015 11:01 PM
RE: PIL-Box throughput - Dave Frederickson - 07-13-2015, 11:47 PM
RE: PIL-Box throughput - J-F Garnier - 07-14-2015, 07:30 AM
RE: PIL-Box throughput - Dave Frederickson - 07-14-2015, 03:37 PM
RE: PIL-Box throughput - Dave Frederickson - 07-14-2015, 11:47 PM
RE: PIL-Box throughput - rprosperi - 07-14-2015, 11:53 PM
RE: PIL-Box throughput - Dave Frederickson - 07-15-2015, 07:02 PM



User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)