For years, I have told people to use as much cache as possible with UIDE, to handle today's large files and still "leave space in the cache" for DOS directories.
Today, Tuesday 23-Aug-2011, I ran "experiments" using a driver equal to UIDE-S, with a new 10-MB cache size of 1280 8K-byte data blocks. I never liked the 5-MB cache that some users MUST have (only 640 blocks, not enough data!) so I chose to try a 10-MB "tiny" cache. I ran my usual test of copying a 635-MB video drivers CD to disk. With my regular 500-MB UIDE cache, this test takes around 124 seconds, plus-or-minus about 2. With only the 10-MB cache, the test took 128 seconds, merely 4 seconds more! I checked 25, 50, and 100-MB caches as well, and none suffered in speed from being small-sized! Each performed as well, maybe a "hair" better in some cases, as the 10-MB cache! So, it seems I may have been "All wet!" (misinformed) re: UIDE's cache performance v.s. cache size. Users may want to check this on their systems, maybe across a variety of applications. And I expect there are a few "large file" systems which do need larger caches. But, it now seems that "casual" users of DOS and UIDE need NOT worry re: using only a 25/50/100-MB cache -- They do seem to perform a LOT better than I expected! Jack R. Ellis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K The only unified storage solution that offers unified management Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient. Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
