Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!ames!uhccux!virtue!comp.vuw.ac.nz!munnari.oz.au!metro!ipso!runxtsa!brucee
From: brucee@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Bruce Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Use of extended memory
Message-ID: <2081@runxtsa.runx.oz.au>
Date: 31 Jul 90 09:57:48 GMT
References: <1990Jul27.183356.996@amd.com>
Organization: RUNX Unix Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Lines: 19

In article <1990Jul27.183356.996@amd.com> ching@brahms.amd.com (Mike Ching) writes:
>Has anyone tested how extended memory is best used? Should it be used
>to make a large RAM disk, increase cache buffer size, something else?

It would be best to use a lot of it for the buffer cache, except that is not
implemented - the cache is limited to 64K on 286's. So you might as well
have a 1200K RAM disk out of a full 2M.

With `sticky' shared text, the RAM disk should be deleted and a small buffer
cache works better.

>today's PCs. I rarely run more than one thing in the background since
>everything I want to do simultaneously seems to get disk bound.

This problem is greatly reduced by good caching.
-- 
Bruce Evans
Internet: brucee@runxtsa.runx.oz.au    UUCP: uunet!runxtsa.runx.oz.au!brucee
(My other address (evans@ditsyda.oz.au) no longer works)