Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pallas!kabra437
From: kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: What is the best way to determine cache size?
Keywords: disk cache
Message-ID: <292@pallas.athenanet.com>
Date: 11 Feb 90 18:30:48 GMT
References: <2525@leah.Albany.Edu>
Reply-To: kabra437@pallas.UUCP (Ken Abrams)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Lines: 30

In article <2525@leah.Albany.Edu> emb978@leah.Albany.Edu (Eric M. Boehm) writes:
>I currently use a disk cache on my 386/25. I had previously set it to 1
>MB. However, this is ridiculously large (so as to be counterproductive).
>I downsized it to 384 KB. This is probably still much too large. I

Just EXACTLY what evidence do you have (speculation aside) that a large
cache is "counterproductive"?  I am using a 2M cache with SMARTDRIVE under
MS-DOS 4.01 and see absolutely NO indication that it is in any way too
large (quite to the contrary, as a matter of fact).  I think the reason
that hardware caches are much smaller is based almost entirely on COST.

>I believe this will be of interest to others and that many people will
>have an opinion on this, so please send e-mail and I will summarize to
>the net in a week (assuming I get any responses).
>Eric M. Boehm
>EMB978@leah.Albany.EDU
>EMB978@ALBNYVMS.BITNET

I would send mail but my news node is still having trouble handling 
addresses in the @ format and that is all you supplied.  I get SO
tired of re-addressing bounced mail just to reformat the address.
Anyway, I think this subject is of a MUCH greater general interest than
a lot of the machine specific (or program specific) stuff that generates
repeated news posts.    

-- 
========================================================
Ken Abrams                     uunet!pallas!kabra437
Illinois Bell                  kabra437@athenanet.com
Springfield                    (voice) 217-753-7965