Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!udel!haven!mimsy!steelmill.cs.umd.edu!rusty
From: rusty@steelmill.cs.umd.edu (Rusty Haddock)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Why not use RAD:? (Re:  ASDG VD0: DOES NOT WORK!)
Message-ID: <27099@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 90 14:58:00 GMT
References: <46200136@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> <9307@helios.TAMU.EDU> <dave.5392@aquarium.buffalo.ny.us> <1990Oct22.033330.22005@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu
Reply-To: rusty@steelmill.cs.umd.edu (Rusty Haddock)
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 20

In article <1990Oct22.033330.22005@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
   >Why are people still searching for a recoverable ram disk? "It's in
   >there!" If there's something horribly wrong with RAD:, I'm not sure I
   >want to know at this late date. Is my computer about to develop dry rot
   >or something?

My understanding was that RAD: does not give memory back once it's used.
I forgot, maybe it even sucks up memory all at once, at mount time, to
satisfy its maximum memory size.  VD0:, on the other hand, allocates
memory as it is needed.  Also, if I delete some files from it then I can
run 'cleanramdisk' and get back the "used" memory for my processes.

Correct me if I'm wrong about RAD:.

		-Rusty-
--
Rusty Haddock				DOMAIN:	rusty@mimsy.cs.umd.edu
Computer Science Department		PATH:	{uunet,rutgers}!mimsy!rusty
University of Maryland			"IBM sucks silicon!"
College Park, Maryland 20742			-- PC Banana Jr,"Bloom County"