Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!well!perry
From: perry@well.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Facc mini-review
Message-ID: <3204@well.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Jun-87 01:39:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: well.3204
Posted: Wed Jun  3 01:39:41 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jun-87 06:27:43 EDT
References: <326@esunix.UUCP> <338@rocky.STANFORD.EDU>
Lines: 17
Keywords: facc cache disk accelerator nice program
Summary: are we communicating?

In article <338@rocky.STANFORD.EDU>, rokicki@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Tomas Rokicki) writes:
> In article <326@esunix.UUCP>, blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) writes:
> > caching in general. One thing not mentioned is that one buffer = 544
> > bytes, useful for setting the number of buffers desired.
> 
> Perry!
> 
> 	Why couldn't you have used the AvailMem lists and used *all*
> *free* *memory*?  This is what I was afraid of . . . I don't want to
> set another buffer size which I shouldn't need to set!

Are we reading each other? Facc allows buffers to be added or taken away
at will (at any time). Why  would you want to take up ALL of memory with
disk buffers automatically? What's the beef here?

Pooh.
	Perry