Bob wrote:
>Weren't there some limitations with SMARTDRV etc. that caused performance to
>degrade after a point? These sound like reasonably modern systems, and with
>some of the buffering in modern drives, I'd be curious to see if benchmarks
>showed any significant improvement with a cache that large.
I haven't tested anything. I can test on my AMD K6-2 400, 64MB RAM (32MB
cache), 8.4GB HD (unknown cache size). Any advices on programs that test?
>Have you done any testing?
Nope, it just goes faster with a 32MB cache then with none ;)
Of course if I run ex. Arachne through bc.exe (by switching to DOS shell)
the performance is even less.
//Bernie
http://bernie.arachne.cz/ DOS programs, Star Wars ...
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
