Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ux1.lbl.gov!forrest
From: forrest@ux1.lbl.gov (Jon Forrest)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Disk Cache programs vs. BUFFERS=: Whats the diff?
Keywords: disk cache, DOS buffer
Message-ID: <1075@helios.ee.lbl.gov>
Date: 9 Oct 88 16:59:53 GMT
References: <3017@dalcs.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@helios.ee.lbl.gov
Reply-To: forrest@lbl.gov (Jon Forrest)
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
Lines: 17

I don't know the answer but I can describe what I do. I use
Lightning (a disk cache program) with no BUFFERS= statement
in my CONFIG.SYS file. (I believe that there is a default number
of buffers that are allocated if you don't give a BUFFERS= statement
in CONFIG.SYS so you always have some buffers). Instead, I use
a fairly large cache (80K). According to the statistics reported
by Lightning, with the kind of work I do over 80% of my disk
requests are found in the cache. Sometimes the percentage is
even higher. I'm quite satisfied with this performance.

By the way, the performance without Lightning turned on is noticably
slower (and jerkier) than with it on. This is what you'd expect.

Jon Forrest		Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 486-4991
forrest@lbl.gov			(internet)
ucbvax!lbl-csam!ux1!forrest	(uucp)
FORREST@LBL			(bitnet)