RS> And are you saying that you have the appropriate latest HPFS386 for that
RS> too or was it one intended for use with one of the earlier versions etc ?

I don't think HPFS386 is OS/2-version-specific.  Drivers are
drivers whereas oils ain't oils.

PE> I remembered that I got those sorts of results before,
PE> and didn't complete the investigation, but did remember
PE> the ballpark I had got to.  That was sqpackp.

RS> From memory tho you did always see a
RS> significant improvement with HPFS386 in use.

Only on the messagebase-scanning and tossing.  I still do, no change.

PE> I do not yet have a theory to explain the observed behaviour.

RS> Until you spell out the full OS2 version and HPFS386 story,
RS> the most likely explanation is just that its showing that
RS> the HPFS386 is producing some weird results with that OS/2.

PE> Like I said above, I had the same problem, ages ago.

RS> You didnt say that above at all on the performance relativitys.
RS> Or maybe you think that para says that. Classic Paul Edwards cryptic.

The para is meant to say that.  HPFS386 has always had this
behaviour.

BTW, that's a good point.  David - you said larger cache sizes don't
always mean better performance, which is true, but the example you
were commenting on didn't show that.  The example only showed that
HPFS386 was slower than HPFS for the SAME cache size for that
particular operation.

PE> As for the HPFS386 story, what do you want to know?  I installed
PE> HPFS386.ZIP followed by LS30*.*, both available from here.

RS> The most obvious question is what they
RS> are supposed to be used with OS/2 wise.

I know of no restrictions, and have used the same version on both
before.

PE> If I knew what was screwing it up, I
PE> could probably adjust some parameters.

RS> Welp, my recollection was that you previously got a dramatic improvement
RS> with it and that you binned it for reliability reasons. 

That is still true, except the reliability is no longer an issue
(at the moment, anyway!).

RS> I dont recall
RS> you ever said it gave the same lousy performance that this config does.

I did, but I didn't make a big deal out of it, as I had never given
it a proper chance (ie try lots of parameters).

RS> So if you are only getting lousy performance now, thats most likely due to
RS> some interaction quirk with an OS/2 version it isnt meant to be used with.

No, that's not the case.

RS> Have you tried other HPFS/HPFS386 tests with the same
RS> cache size, and never seen HPFS386 better ?  If so its
RS> unlikely to be a simple parameter adjustment problem.

HPFS386 is brilliant on rescans, thanks to the indexes all being
in memory.  Oh, I see what you mean, stick them both at 2 meg and
do some tests.  That's a good idea, I'll try that out.  I wouldn't
expect to see HPFS386 beat HPFS at that, just be the same.
BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---