Walter Bright Wrote: > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > Nice advice on madvise, didn't know about it. Just in case it might be > > useful to someone, trying madvise with any of the four possible policies > > did not yield any noticeable change in timing for my particular test. > > If you can build 4 windows executables, I can time them on my machine, > and we can see if windows behaves differently.
By default windows does random access optimisation simply sucking file into cache which is faster (on XP) than sequential access optimisation. It will behave quite good if all 400MB fit in your file cache.
