Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:22:57 -0600 (CST)
From: "Colin W. Glenn" <cwg01 AT gnofn DOT org>
To: "'OpenDOS newsgroup'" <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
Subject: Re: [opendos] Filesystems
In-Reply-To: <19970207.111937.4959.0.chambersb@juno.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970207211655.21429D-100000@sparkie.gnofn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Benjamin D Chambers wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:09:29 -0600 (CST) "Colin W. Glenn"

> >of the driver, which then consumes more resources waiting to die 
> >again.
> >
> >Good idea.
> Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

Just a little. ;)

> And yet a cacheing system operates on EXACTLY the same principle - access

Basicly like a PM taskmanager, if a page hasn't been accessed in a while,
save to swapfile, mark available, purge contents.

> So, say, you set a max of 2 drivers loaded at once.  If all you ever use
> is FAT and ext2fs, then no problem - you'd never have a lag.  If you

True.

> have, say 10 drives mounted with a different fs on each, you could
> encounter a lag - but how many people run a program that accesses 10

Also true, I just hope no-one comes up with a driver bigger than 120k, the
smaller the better.  Better yet, instead of dumping the driver, what about
caching the driver?  That way you don't have the driver reinitialize
itself, it's ready to do!  (This assumes the system uses the driver in
Protected Mode with a smart enough swapmanager.)