From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon May  8 15:47:43 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id PAA24800
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 1995 15:47:43 -0700
Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA24792
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 8 May 1995 15:47:38 -0700
Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <218>; Mon, 8 May 1995 16:00:34 -0700
Date: 	Mon, 8 May 1995 15:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Samplonius <tom@haven.uniserve.com>
To: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com>
cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Is a 486 fast enough for SCSI?
In-Reply-To: <199505082202.PAA14965@ref.tfs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950508154104.1416A-100000@haven.uniserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 8 May 1995, Julian Elischer wrote:

> one other thing that should be mentionned is that it is possible
> to DE_TUNE your filesystem so it will slow down..
> 
> try tunefs 
> and set you maxcontig to 64 and the seektime to 0 ms

  I used tunefs to change maxcontig from 2 to 64.  There was no 
discernable difference.  tunefs doesn't appear to be able to adjust seek 
time?

> It also helps to tell newfs that you have only 1 head
> but a LOT of sectors per track.. this defeats some code
> that makes the wrong choices for SCSI type disks (and some IDE now)


Tom