Why is network reading slow?
in [MFC]
|
Prev: Is it a bug in mciSendCommand function?
Next: AFX_MANAGE_STATE() macro disturbs the startup position of the ATL dialog
From: Alexander Grigoriev on 16 Jan 2010 20:05 "Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> wrote in message news:pin3l5p7caaj04r4ppsdu33s2qjtbu2kcj(a)4ax.com... > Unfortunately, thinking of writing more than 4GB is not unreasonable > today, not in Win64. > It was a complete failure to retain 32-bit lengths in a 64-bit world. > joe > **** Just implement your own function... THough overlapped would be problematic.
From: Hector Santos on 16 Jan 2010 20:58 Joseph M. Newcomer wrote: >> Limits were generally based on the natural word size of the chips used. > Sometimes. Sometimes it was based on the word size of two words. ... That might be also related to whether a vendor was using intel (Segmented) or Motorola (Linear) chips back then. My first PC encounter to the "larger" disk size for a PC was a DOS patch by a $5,000 WORM drive vendor. If I recall, this "25lb" drive was 320 MB. It was used for my first company OptiSoft creating Electronic File Cabinets, with a scanner, video image board that had a direct memory mirror to the HP laser printer. The "OptiFile" as we called. Funny you mentioned CMU, as we tried to get Jobs to give us a Next computer to port it over. I used to work for circle W. :) >> That was certainly unrealistic back then, and still is today. > Unfortunately, thinking of writing more than 4GB is not unreasonable today, > not in Win64. It was a complete failure to retain 32-bit lengths > in a 64-bit world. I agree with the academic points, but you have to think of the market place. For ISV like us, and the thousands of ISV and perhaps millions of 32 bit applications, if Microsoft went full 64 bit with no 32 bit sub-system, there would be without a doubt, a MAJOR backlash and no doubt ant-trust problem for them. -- HLS
From: Hector Santos on 16 Jan 2010 21:06 Joseph M. Newcomer wrote: > The Illiac-IV was a mid-1960s machine. I remember learning about it in 1967, when people > who were developing the software came to CMU to give talks about what it would be like, > and by 1970 the software was already running. A friend of mine became the Illiac-IV > project manager in the early 1970s, I think around 1973, when it was already a > well-established entity and had been for several years. But I distinctly remember Dan > Slotnik giving a talk about the disk drive around 1968 or 1969. My memory is increasingly failing, but I dont' seem to every recall this. What happen by the late 70s/early 80s to it? By then, when I was with a Westinghouse venture group we had a card blanc to explore and purchase every new technology at the time to see how it would fit into the corporation and/or new business - Software and hardware. Large disk storage devices was among them for the then hot ODSAR (Optical Document Storage and Retrieval) market. I had moved passed minis and mainframes by this point so if it was for the minis, I can see why I never heard of it. -- HLS
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 17 Jan 2010 15:20 See below... On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:58:43 -0500, Hector Santos <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote: >Joseph M. Newcomer wrote: > >>> Limits were generally based on the natural word size of the chips used. > >> Sometimes. Sometimes it was based on the word size of two words. ... > > >That might be also related to whether a vendor was using intel >(Segmented) or Motorola (Linear) chips back then. > >My first PC encounter to the "larger" disk size for a PC was a DOS >patch by a $5,000 WORM drive vendor. If I recall, this "25lb" drive >was 320 MB. It was used for my first company OptiSoft creating >Electronic File Cabinets, with a scanner, video image board that had a >direct memory mirror to the HP laser printer. The "OptiFile" as we >called. Funny you mentioned CMU, as we tried to get Jobs to give us a >Next computer to port it over. I used to work for circle W. :) > >>> That was certainly unrealistic back then, and still is today. > >> Unfortunately, thinking of writing more than 4GB is not unreasonable today, > > > not in Win64. It was a complete failure to retain 32-bit lengths > > in a 64-bit world. > >I agree with the academic points, but you have to think of the market >place. For ISV like us, and the thousands of ISV and perhaps millions >of 32 bit applications, if Microsoft went full 64 bit with no 32 bit >sub-system, there would be without a doubt, a MAJOR backlash and no >doubt ant-trust problem for them. **** If I am running a 32-bit application on Win64, then I cannot write more than 32 bits worth of data. But if I am running native 64-bit apps on Win64, there is no sane reason to limit me to 4.2GB of data on an I/O operation. I am talking about 64-bit systems with native 64-bit apps. I was talking about the silly limitation that makes it inconvenient to build even native 64-bit programs and run them! Backlash? A company that produced the VS.NET IDE and the Office Ribbon, and changes the UI on each operating system in completely whimsical and aribtrary ways, clearly has no concern about either backlash or trust of users. One could argue that you don't need the Department of Justice; the way Microsoft creates incompatible versions of its programs on each release generates enough anti-trust in its users that they don't need any help from outsiders! joe Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 17 Jan 2010 15:35
See below,... On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:06:33 -0500, Hector Santos <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote: >Joseph M. Newcomer wrote: > >> The Illiac-IV was a mid-1960s machine. I remember learning about it in 1967, when people >> who were developing the software came to CMU to give talks about what it would be like, >> and by 1970 the software was already running. A friend of mine became the Illiac-IV >> project manager in the early 1970s, I think around 1973, when it was already a >> well-established entity and had been for several years. But I distinctly remember Dan >> Slotnik giving a talk about the disk drive around 1968 or 1969. > >My memory is increasingly failing, but I dont' seem to every recall >this. What happen by the late 70s/early 80s to it? By then, when I >was with a Westinghouse venture group we had a card blanc to explore >and purchase every new technology at the time to see how it would fit >into the corporation and/or new business - Software and hardware. >Large disk storage devices was among them for the then hot ODSAR >(Optical Document Storage and Retrieval) market. I had moved passed >minis and mainframes by this point so if it was for the minis, I can >see why I never heard of it. Illiac-IV was the most important supercomputer of its era, and in fact its architecture was the prototype for many subsequent supercomputer architectures. It is hard to look at ANY modern architecture without seeing the influence of Illiac-IV. The SSE instruction set uses the same SIMD model that Illiac-IV used! The Illiac-IV disks were one-of-a-kind disk drives build specifically for that computer. They had really interesting features, such as CRV encoding instead of CAV encoding. In Constant Angular Velocity, a bit takes up a fixed delta-T A single bit is so-many-somethingths-of-a-second in length (the value depends upon the rotational velocity and bit density). But what this means is that bits towards the center of the disk are at the limits of what can be stored, but on the outside edges of the disk, are very long, because in that given nth-of-a-second, the outer edge rotates much further than the inner edge. The Illiac-IV disk used Constant Rotational Velocity, so every bit was the same nth-of-a-second in length. The bit density on the outer tracks was 2 or 3 times the bit density of the inner tracks. It was the only way tht they could get that many bits on a disk of that era. The physical disk was huge, I don't remember exactly, but it could have been 3 feet in diameter. Tracks were selected by physical positioning; hydraulic-wtih-detent or solenoid-with-detent were the two modes, with no following feedback systems (the "voice coil" positioners that did dynamic head tracking came much later). In 1966, the state-of-the-art disk drive, the IBM 1311/2311, held 2MB on a disk about 15" in diameter, with ten surfaces. Bit density was Really Low. (The lowest-bit-density, slowest, and most-expensive-per-bit disk I know of is pictured on my Web site, http://www.flounder.com/disk_photo.htm) joe Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm |