Date:	Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:40:39 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
Message-Id:	<7263-Fri03Aug2001114039+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<20010802133645.A5967@kendall.sfbr.org> (message from JT Williams
	on Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:36:45 -0500)
Subject:	Re: build cvs djdev on 386?
References:	<200108020952 DOT LAA07038 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010802144204 DOT 889A-100000 AT is> <20010802133645 DOT A5967 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:36:45 -0500
> From: JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
> 
> -: BUFFERS is the poor man's disk cache, and without it DOS is hopelessly 
> -: inefficient in disk I/O.
> 
> Can DOS FASTOPEN improve performance, or is BUFFERS generally adequate?

They target two different issues, so they are complementary.  BUFFERS
caches the data, while FASTOPEN caches disk locations of files, to
avoid searching the disk from the root when a long path such as
c:\foo\bar\baz\more\yet-more\myfile.dat is being accessed.

IIRC, FASTOPEN doesn't help much unless you are accessing files very
deep in your directory tree.  But you might give it a try.  However,
if you install a disk cache, FASTOPEN is just a waste of memory, since
the cache will do that better.

- Raw text -