[comp.sys.amiga.hardware] Is cacheing or Addbuffers better??

skank@iastate.edu (Skank George L) (06/15/91)

     This is the kind of question that would go in a comp.sys.amiga.system
newsgroup if we had one I imagine.  Anyway, here goes.  Which will improve
disk speed more, using one of the several disk cacheing programs, or using
addbuffers to add extra buffers to a drive?  I have an Amiga 3000 with 4Megs
of fastram and would like to create a 1Meg diskbuffer.  Additionally, is
there a point beyond which it becomes pointless to add more buffers.  I
realize that that when the size of the buffer is squeezing resources into chip
ram, that's bad, however, is there a practical limit in software to the
size of the buffer (i.e.: too many buffers means slower access time just
because there are so many buffers)?  Anyone know?

					--George
  

-- 
George L. Skank			|Five years ago I couldn't spell engineer.  ///
Senior, Electrical Engineering	|Now I are one.				   ///
Iowa State University, Ames, IA	|				      \\\ ///
skank@iastate.edu		|Phone: (515) 233-2165		       \\X//

jma@reef.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) (06/16/91)

Doesn't addbuffers use Chip RAM?  Someone please correct me if
I'm wrong without flaming me.
-- 
John  M.  Adams   --****--   Professional Student      ///
Internet: jma@cis.ufl.edu            Genie:  vlad     ///  Only the Amiga
Sysop of The Beachside, Amiga BBS, Paragon 2.0858  \\V//  Makes it Possible
Fido Net 1:3612/557.   904-492-2305     (Florida)   \X/