Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!tallis.enet.dec.com!reisert
From: reisert@tallis.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: RE: Disk Caches - PC-Tools & Super PC-Kwik
Message-ID: <12113@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 31 May 90 23:25:44 GMT
Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 41

Hello Again,

At the suggestion of Rich Wilson (richw@hplsla.hp.com), I measured the cache
performance while compiling a 58K .C demo included with my Quick-C package.
For all the tests, I loaded the cache from scratch, entered Quick-C,
compiled the file (into an executable image), exited Quick-C, and took the
cache measurements.  I also timed the compile time, which varied from 22
seconds (no cache) to 20 seconds (using Super PC-Kwik or PC Tools version
5.5).  Here are the stats:

PC Tools v 5.5 cache, 384K in expanded memory (MAX=4):
	276 reads saved / 646 reads = 42% saved
PC Tools v 5.5 cache, 384K in expanded memory (MAX=20):
	364 reads saved / 701 reads = 51% saved
PC Tools v 6.0 cache, 384K in expanded memory (MAX=4):
	632 reads saved / 3594 reads = 17% saved
Super PC-Kwik v 3.19 cache, 384K in extended memory:
	367 reads saved / 824 reads = 44% saved

So caching didn't really save any time (maybe I need some bigger test
programs), but there are some definite differences between the above
programs.

I was also told there was a new version of the PC Tools v 6.0 cache on the
Central Point BBS - I'm going to try to download it tonight and see if it
makes a difference.

Ciao for now.

jim

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital
 Equipment Corporation."

James J. Reisert                Internet: reisert@tallis.enet.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.         UUCP:     ...decwrl!tallis.enet!reisert
295 Foster Street
P.O. Box 1123
Littleton, MA  01460