Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!munson From: munson@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Optimal Cache Size? Message-ID: <18427@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Fri, 17-Apr-87 10:17:34 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.18427 Posted: Fri Apr 17 10:17:34 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Apr-87 06:20:37 EST References: <1021@zog.cs.cmu.edu> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: munson@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Ethan Munson) Distribution: na Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 23 Because I am not a Mac program developer, my needs from the disk cache may be different than those of many people on the net. My Mac is mostly used for terminal emulation, file transfer, games, word processing, and a little spreadsheet work. I keep my disk cache at either 256K or 384K and find that it makes a BIG difference. For example: 1) The first launch of Red Ryder 9.2 takes about 10 seconds. The second launch takes about half that and has audibly less disk access. 2) Without the cache, Excel and Word 1.05 have many more small delays when I make them use less common or more "compute-heavy" features. With the cache, you get the standard caching effect. That is, the first time a new features is used, the disk is accessed. Repeated uses of the feature do not require a disk access. I have no idea why LightSpeed Pascal doesn't show much improvement with the cache, but I sure like having it. Ethan Munson munson@ernie.berkeley.edu ucbvax!ernie!munson