Message-ID: <32D050A1.550C@gbrmpa.gov.au>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 09:08:49 +0800
From: Leath Muller <leathm AT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au>
Reply-To: leathm AT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au
Organization: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rob Vasquez <digital DOT fx AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: slow dos, fast win95 linking ?
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970102171038 DOT 18305C-100000 AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> > I get abou the same results with a 8
> > meg smartdrv cache, but worse results with a 24 meg smartdrv cache. What
> > gives? I have 32 megs of ram and write back caching on both times.
 
> The algorithms of SmartDrv aren't smart enough to make larger caches
> better (larger cache means more time to look up sectors cached in it).
> Experience shows that it doesn't pay to define a cache larger than 8MB,
> no matter how much free RAM do you have.  Microsoft recommends 4MB as the
> maximum size, but I found that 8MB is a bit better on a memory-abundant
> system.

And all I use is 'smartdrv /X', and my compile times are only slightly
slower than under Win95. If your memory starved, or just couldn't be
bothered, smartdrv should do the trick fine...
 
> AFAIK, the real advantage of the Vcache from Windows 95 is that it adapts
> its size dynamically as needed and isn't limited by a single fixed size;
> it is also faster because 32-bit protected-mode file system lifts many DOS
> limitations which SmartDrv is required to support.

Win95 just uses all available memory left as a cache, and if a program
required that memory, the memory is freed. Pretty cool I think... :)

Leathal.