Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!ames!think!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!decuac!shlump.nac.dec.com!tallis.enet.dec.com!reisert
From: reisert@tallis.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: RE: Disk Caches - PC-Tools & Super PC-Kwik
Message-ID: <12140@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 1 Jun 90 14:04:51 GMT
Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 35

In article <12113@shlump.nac.dec.com>, I write,

>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

I downloaded the new PC Tools v 6 cache from the Central Point BBS last
night (I think the new cache is version 6.03, if I read the timestamp right
as being 18:03).  Anyway, using the same parameters as above, the compile
completed in 19 seconds (vs 20-21 secs.  for the other caches above) and the
hit rate rose to around 21% or so.  Still nothing to write home about, in my
book, but maybe they do figure writes in the count of logical transfers
(only makes sense).  But that doesn't explain why there are so so many more
logical transfers when I boot than with the v5.5 cache.  Does anything get
written to the disk when you boot, normally? I think not.

Further bulletins as events warrant.

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