Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmdeo!adspdk!hclausen
From: hclausen@adspdk.CBMNET (Henrik Clausen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Hard Disk Cache
Message-ID: <17f189d8.ARN03260@adspdk.CBMNET>
Date: 24 Sep 90 07:50:32 GMT
References: <02520.AA02520@lemsys.UUCP> <1242@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de>
Reply-To: hclausen@adspdk.CBMNET
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Organization: Graffiti Data
Lines: 17

In article <1242@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de>, Michael van Elst writes:

> Nevertheless, unless you want to read a short file that can be hold
> in the cache several times, you'll get a severe slowdown. The FaccII
> program might be faster than floppies but it is definitely slower
> than a harddrive. 

   If you do a lot of directory scanning, you may get a big win. I used a
program that would scan a dir of n files approx. n/2 times (!) - meaning my HD 
was tearing itself apart. Using BlitzDisk to hold the dirs cured this and went
much faster. Though FaccII might be slower than BlitzDisk, it should hold true
in this case as well.

                                            -Henrik
|            Henrik Clausen, Graffiti Data (Fido: 2:230/22.33)           |
|           ...{pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmehq!adspdk!hclausen           |
\__"Do not accept the heart that is the slave to reason" - Qawwali trad__/