jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) (05/22/91)
I found a program called "cache-disk" on Compuserve recently. It's exactly what it sounds like -- a cache program for floppy disks. What I want to know is, is there any reason to use it instead of just using AddBuffers? -- * From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | "You know I never knew Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | that it could be so 37 Brook Street | uunet!cbmvax!amix!vanth!jms | strange..." Montgomery, PA 17752 | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | (R.E.M.)
colas@celeste.inria.fr (Colas Nahaboo) (05/24/91)
In article <jms.4395@vanth.UUCP>, jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) writes: > I found a program called "cache-disk" on Compuserve recently. It's exactly > what it sounds like -- a cache program for floppy disks. What I want to > know is, is there any reason to use it instead of just using AddBuffers? YES!!! It keeps the whole track in memory, where all other caches or addbuffers cache only individual sectors... + prevents trashing (2 tasks acessing same disk do not slow down each other) + accelerates a lot small files accesses. chances are next file is already in the track + less need to use optimizers. speed is less affected by fragmentation. + accelerates writes (delays them, then flush buffer after 2 seconds of inactivity) defects: - the more memory, the more effective (I have 200K cached on each disk) - chip ram used, no fast (will change in next version) - current version do not implement FulFilRequest, making dms, zoom, warp, etc... unhappy (all other progs run fine) - due to delayed writes, you could ruin disk if you reset less tahn 2 seconds after a write. (never happened to me) I could not live without it. I am now a registered user.