Xref: utzoo comp.windows.ms:11706 comp.sys.novell:1231
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!tandem!netcom!ergo
From: ergo@netcom.COM (Isaac Rabinovitch)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.sys.novell
Subject: Re: Windows on diskless workstations
Message-ID: <1991Apr20.034704.28236@netcom.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 91 03:47:04 GMT
References: <8621@crash.cts.com> <1991Apr17.130557.14349@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1991Apr18.015949.26790@npd.Novell.COM>
Organization: UESPA
Lines: 29

In <1991Apr18.015949.26790@npd.Novell.COM> jlamb@npd.Novell.COM (Jason "Nematode" Lamb) writes:

>In article <1991Apr17.130557.14349@hubcap.clemson.edu> cballen@hubcap.clemson.edu (charles allen) writes:
>>> 
>>I've seen people posting previously that they used a ram drive for the 
>>swap file.  Wouldn't it be more efficient to tell windows NOT to use a swap
>>file in the case of a diskless station OR a crammed hard drive, and allow
>>windows to access 100% of the RAM as RAM? 


>Only catch is this. You can't tell Windows not to use a swap file. And if it
>comes down to using a network workstation's resources for swapping, this is
>the preferred order..... 1) Local Hard Drive.. 2) Local RAM Drive..
>3) NW386 Server drive.. 4) NW286 Server drive.. 5) Version 1.01 of Windows..

That's easily dealth with:  create a very small permanent swap file.
In effect, you're restricting your Windows workspace to real RAM.

I think the moral of this story is that diskless workstations are a
case of applying today's technology to yesterday's problems.  Why
expend expensive network resources to avoid buying cheap winchester
disks?
-- 

	ergo@netcom.com 			Isaac Rabinovitch
	netcom!ergo@apple.com			Silicon Valley, CA
	{apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!ergo

  "You might well think that... I couldn't possibly comment."