Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!trwind!venice!press
From: press@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Barry Press)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Severe performance degradation with 386 enhanced mode, any tips?
Message-ID: <966@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM>
Date: 18 Jan 91 18:58:38 GMT
References: <1991Jan16.224240.14201@news.iastate.edu> <1991Jan17.234310.6393@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <6219@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1991Jan18.174333.28178@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Reply-To: press@venice.sedd.trw.com (Barry Press)
Organization: TRW Systems Engineering & Development Division, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 19

In article <1991Jan18.174333.28178@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> mikew@charm.LCS.MIT.EDU (Michael B. Williams) writes:
>In article <6219@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, jcb@frisbee.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Becker) writes:
>|> A friend found that using QEMM for memory management worked well, like
>|> twice as fast or better. Apparently even DOS shells running full
>
>I like this idea, but I got QEMM for Christmas and so far it doesn't seem to make much

I tried it as well, and find that although I can make the system work (but 
don't load smartdrv high, cause it locks up my system), it drastically slows
down my disk.  For instance, SI reports disk speed of 8.5, but if I simply
put in QEMM vs. HIMEM, it goes down to 6.2.  Worse yet, calls to Quarterdeck
helped not a bit.  Admittedly, the SCSI disk I've got is not your usual setup,
and there are interactions between the disk driver and qemm (but both Adaptec 
and QDK say they work together), but losing 25% of disk performance for 25K or
so of memory (can't load smartdrive high, and QDK says in general this probably
doesn't work) just isn't worth it.

-- 
Barry Press                                 Internet: press@venice.sedd.trw.com