klein@gravity.UUCP (04/15/87)
In article <1382@uwmacc.UUCP> myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) writes: >> Is there a cache size that generally works the well with all programs? I have >> a Mac Plus, and I've been using a 96K cache, but performance doesn't seem as >> nice as it could be... >> Richard M. Siegel > >That's a good size. I typically use a 96K cache and a 400K Ramdisk with >system files. The results are especially pleasing during file transfers >and using database software. I asked locally about optimal RamDisk sizes and got only one response. Since we're on this subject, and allocating memory for RamCache and RamDisk are closely related, we might extend this discussion to RamDisks. Up until now I have been using no RamCache but have put the entire System Folder in a RamDisk. This includes printer drivers. With the newest versions of System and Finder, the RamDisk size gets up to around 600K, which is starting to be just too big because applications start "swapping" too much. One solution I had was to make up three different versions of the RamDisk (sizes are for 4.1/3.2 Finder/System): 1. "Minimal" -- fewest fonts and DAs that allow most programs to at least work. Includes ImageWriter driver. Size: ~250K. 2. "General Purpose" -- all generally useful fonts and DAs, plus one or two little tools and both ImageWriter and LaserWriter drivers. Size: ~450K. 3. "Word Processing" -- a huge System with all sizes of useful fonts; both printer drivers. Size: ~500K. These three RamDisks have worked very well. I find I use the Minimal and the Word Processing versions most of the time. But with the new System/Finder which I would like to use, I only have about 200K - 300K memory left on a Mac Plus, which really kills performance. The one response I got from my local query suggested putting *only* the System and Finder on the RamDisk. Does anyone have magic combinations of RamDisk/RamCache that work well? -- Mike Klein klein@sun.{arpa,com} Sun Microsystems, Inc. {ucbvax,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!sun!klein Mountain View, CA