Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 14:38:09 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Leath Muller <leathm AT solwarra DOT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au>
cc: Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>, dj AT delorie DOT com,
        djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: fread slowstart
In-Reply-To: <199709090339.NAA19032@solwarra.gbrmpa.gov.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970909143740.7143N-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Leath Muller wrote:

> > > Currently, the amount starts at 512 and doubles after each read (i.e.
> > > 512, 1k, 2k, 4k, 8k, etc).  Should it quadruple instead?
> > > (512, 2k, 8k, 32k)  That would get to the larger transfers faster, but
> > > be less optimal for some programs that fseek a lot.
>  
> > I would probably quadruple, or even 8X (512, 4K, 32K).
> 
> I normally don't comment too much - but I would vote for even a
> larger starting size and then quadruple... ie: start at say 4k, then
> 16, then 32 etc. Why not do this?

I think we should time several programs with different options and see
the results, instead of guessing what would be the best initial size
and the multiple.  Voting will not help here.