Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:23:26 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: tyoung <tyoung AT netaxis DOT com>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Slooooww Iooooo -- Please help.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981004115832.22121A-100000@howard.softserv.dynip.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.981006142307.17118H-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


On Sun, 4 Oct 1998, tyoung wrote:

> Actually, I have run with a RAMDRIVE under DOSEMU and  a typical
> job runs about twice as fast.

RAMDRIVE is not a disk cache, it's a RAM disk.

I also don't understand what does ``twice as fast'' means.  Twice as
fast as what?  In your original message you said that Linux is 10
times faster than Windows 95.  My experience with well-tuned
DOS/Windows systems is that they are about 40% slower than Linux on
the same platform.

> So it
> looks like the int's and accompanying real/protected mode switching 
> is the problem.

This can only happen if your program doesn't do much except
reading/writing large files, or if you use disk I/O inefficiently.  It
might be a good idea to describe in more detail what the program does.