Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!ctrsol!emory!att!watmath!ria!uwovax!16012_3045 From: 16012_3045@uwovax.uwo.ca (Paul Gomme) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: (Disk) Cache problems... Message-ID: <4383.256e9ea1@uwovax.uwo.ca> Date: 25 Nov 89 19:16:01 GMT References: <638@ariadne.csi.forth.GR> Followup-To: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Distribution: comp Organization: Department of Economics, UWO, London, Ontario, Canada Lines: 30 In article <638@ariadne.csi.forth.GR>, bluguras@csi.forth.gr (Blougouras Dimitris) writes: > Problem : CACHE programs. > Machine : IBM AT 6Mhz, 30 Meg. Hard disk, 1.5 Meg. extended memory. > Symptom : > No Cache | PC-CACHE > --------------+--------------- > Norton's DI 1.9 | 4.9 > Coretest 202.9 Kb/sec | 985.6 Kb/sec > Compiling 77 sec | 75 sec > > This means that when I compile a C program I develop, I see NO > difference in compile times, whether using the cache or not. > I notice the same phenomenon even when I use the Compaq's or > Zenith's Cache programs, but I mention PC-CACHE because its > performance is the best of all. > (I use command line version of Microsoft C 5.1 and/or Quick C) > Question: What is going on there? Is the above a single, one-time compile? If so, there's nothing in the cache to substantially improve performance. That you get any performance increase may reflect that the .OBJ file doesn't need to be read in from disk for the LINK. What are the results on the second or subsequent compile? How large of a cache are you running with (this will affect the "hit" probability). Is there any reason why you tried to send follow-ups to comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d? They really don't belong there. > UUCP : ...!mcvax!ariadne!bluguras - BITNET : bluguras@csi.forth.gr -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bitnet: gomme@uwovax.bitnet gomme@uwovax.uwo.ca Internet: gomme@uwo.ca