Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

about to fix the "final" doslfn bug (Announce)

posted by Richard, 10.04.2022, 11:51

>
>
> If you're going to test both, then you should really be using the new
> version, so here
> it is.
>
> >
>
> > With my batch method above - I was wondering if a cache of the DIR is
> going
> > to impact the second and third DIRs? i.e. 1st time for DIR would be
> "long",
> > but if DIR table is now in cache, subsequent DIR of the same folder
> would
> > be both shorter and the same time to do.
>
> Pretty much. The difference will be in disk writes. I noticed that when I
> extracted Japheth's test.zip each subsequent extraction was slower than the
> previous; the fifth was a second slower than the first. That was on the RAM
> drive; both versions were about the same time in MS-DOS.




So I think I am up to date with updates jadoxa/japheth regarding HimemSX, doslfnMS, doslfn (41f) - as of an hour ago.


I refined slightly my screenshots so that time for DIR (without lfn programs) are also included (WHITE print) to supplement doslfnMS (GREEN print) and doslfn_41f (RED print).

So the screenshots in sequence shows:-

- end part of DIR (to show how many items (files/folders))
- time to do DIR > NUL (without using lfn programs)
- (hidden is DIR of a different large folder > NUL to clear any DIR cache)
- installing doslfnMS
- time to do DIR > NUL (using doslfnMS)
- (hidden is DIR of a different large folder > NUL to clear any DIR cache)
- uninstalling doslfnMS
- installing doslfn_41f
- time to do DIR > NUL (using doslfn_41f)
- (hidden is DIR of a different large folder > NUL to clear any DIR cache)
- uninstalling doslfn_41f



and six (6) batch files created, all similar in code style, to cover the six folders

- 1.bat USB FAT16 for D:\USBFAT16\
- 2.bat USB FAT16 for D:\
- 3.bat XMS FAT32 for G:\XMS_FAT.32g\
- 4.bat XMS FAT32 for G:\
- 5.bat SXMS FAT32 for H:\SXMS_FAT.32h\
- 6.bat SXMS FAT32 for H:\





the 5.bat file is:-



cls
dir h:\sXMS_FAT.32h\
@echo OFF
dir c:\freedos\bin\ >nul
@echo ON
dir h:\sXMS_FAT.32h\ > nul
@echo OFF
dir c:\freedos\bin\ > nul
@echo ON
doslfnMS
vecho /k0/fGreen doslfnMS
dir h:\sXMS_FAT.32h\ > nul
@echo OFF
dir c:\freedos\bin\ > nul
@echo ON
vecho /a7
doslfnMS -u
doslfn
vecho /k0/fRed doslfn
dir h:\sXMS_FAT.32h\ > nul
@echo OFF
dir c:\freedos\bin\ > nul
@echo ON
vecho /a7
doslfn -u
@echo OFF
rem vecho /k0 /fGreen doslfnMS /a7
@echo ON





In the sequence 1.bat, 2.bat ...6.bat, the screenshots are:-


[image]

[image]

[image]

[image]

[image]

[image]




the respective folders for 1.bat, 2.bat ... are shown below




[image]

[image]

[image]

[image]

[image]

[image]




When doing manually a DIR with output to display, it seemed very quick (for ~ 16 or so items). However, doing output to > NUL was painfully slow for both doslfn programs (for the same ~ 16 items).


With 2.bat, an error occurred with doslfn_41f (but not doslfnMS) - I suspect it may have something to do with the 4 Gi file.see edit note at end of this reply

The (colorful) output was not consistent over all 6 batch files - I suspect a timing problem with 4.bat (XMS Root DIR of g:\).


So unless I have done something seriously wrong with the six batch files (or something silly) - it appears doslfn (all versions) have a serious timing problem with > NUL.


Any suggestions on how to do as above (i.e. with one-page screenshots) without > NUL in an automated batch file approach?


All of the above was "one particular kind of EXTREME testing of FAT32 with LFN".

I plan to do a few more.






I think I discovered the problem with 2.bat - but because this computer I am preparing this reply on is the same computer to BOOT into DOS - I will submit this reply now and edit/correct fairly soon

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22632 Postings in 2109 Threads, 402 registered users, 281 users online (0 registered, 281 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum