HPFS386 on Warp 4 - improving disk i/o

    HPFS386 can improve your system speed noticeably. HPFS as shipped with Warp allows you no more than 2Mb cache size. HPFS386 has no such limit. This is one improvement you don't need a benchmark for: you notice it straight away.

    Get HPFS386 files from LANserver 3.0 FixPack, 1994.

    Installation is a breeze, but as always: backup before getting into a panic.

    Get the five required files and put them into C:\IBM386FS. The files are: HFS.MSG (not strictly necessary), HFSH.MSG (not strictly necessary), HPFS200.386, HPFS386.IFS and CACHE386.EXE.
    Add these two lines to your CONFIG.SYS BEFORE the existing HPFS.IFS line. 

    REM -- start of HPFS386 --
IFS=C:\IBM386FS\HPFS386.IFS C:\IBM386FS\HPFS200.386 /cache=4096 /heap=4096 /autocheck:C
RUN=C:\IBM386FS\CACHE386.EXE /lazy:on
REM -- end of HPFS386 --

    Do not REM the existing HPFS line yet, as it is your safety net: should HPFS386 fail to install, HPFS will start as before and allow you to access your disk those boot floppies you keep close by at all times. Right?
    Reboot, check and enjoy :-)
    From the .MSG files and the .INF files shipped with Warp, you can deduce some of the parameters you can play with.
    Once satisfied with the setup, you can REM that HPFS line.

    Extra! extra! Read all about it

    HPFS386 is a ring 0 driver with built-in SMB networking properties, whereas HPFS is a ring 3 driver. Does that make HPFS386 less likely to be dragged down in a software crash? Anyway, it does make HPFS very suitable for peer networking.
    Cache = memory directly taken away from applications. If you run disk intensive applications, you are going to be very happy. If you run memory intensive applications: think twice. You might increase your swapping needs if you set the cache size too large.
    If you can afford between 8 and 12 Mb for the cache, you'll really notice the difference.
    WARNING 1:One user reported a major crash when copying/moving large numbers of files (1000+).
    WARNING 2:Another reported on corrupted user access rights in a peer networking situation after reverting to HPFS. However, I have gone back and forth several times between HPFS and different versions of HPFS386, and I have not noticed anything going wrong with share-level access rights.
    WARNING 3:It would seem that NEWDASD and HPFS386 do not get along.
    Other versions of LANserver Fixpacks contain other versions of HPFS386. These are just slightly more difficult to install, and they produce error messages about non-existent .MSG files. As performance improvements are marginal, I recommend using the older version.

    I would like to get some feedback on a couple of things:

    How do I check whether any driver is ring 0 or ring 3?
    How do I measure the real world differences between one driver or the other? I have been using DiskIO, version 1.9 by Kai Uwe Rommel, and this leads me to believe that the newer versions of HPFS386 have less CPU overhead than the older version.
    Does anybody know the last thing on the access rights issue?
    From the Warp 5 FAQ, I picked up something about a long due overhaul of HPFS. It will possibly go the way of a Journaling File System. Will it?

    Remember, I give no guarantees, the risks and rewards are all your own.
    Cheers/2 you all.

    Yes, the small print. HPFS386 is part of LanServer/WarpServer. It is illegal to use HPFS386 without a license for either one of the two. But I cannot imagine IBM objecting to its use by Warp users. IBM should just be flattered with our end-user interest in Warp.

    Please let me know your success or horror stories, other comments, suggestions, additions or answers concerning HPFS386.

    Michiel de Mooij

    [ Home ] [ OS/2 ] [ Fault Tolerance ] [ Ghostscript ] [ PMView ]