So finaly I started with fine tuning of Arachne perforamce under the
same old DOS, instead of dreaming about Linux port (but not forever!!)
I have noticed, that with the same CORE.EXE, Arachne installation on one
partition of my disk (C:) needs 10 sec to load one page, while
installation of different partition (E:) needs 13 sec to load. I tried
all possible methods to accelerate installation on E: drive:
1) I ran DISKOPT - it helped a little (cca 1 sec per page), but not
enough...
2) I decided to modify Arachne to write .htt files to CACHE\HEADERS
instead of directly CACHE\. This helped a little.... another second
(the 10 vs. 13 ratio is AFTER all my fine tuning...). In this phase,
number of files in CACHE on C: drive was higher, than number of files
in CACHE on my E: drive
3) I reduced number of files in Arachne working directory to
be smaller than 128, because I have heard this can help FAT filesystem
used by DOS to run faster... it had absolutely no effect
4) Becoming totaly hopeless, I have started again, with totatly clean
cache. Page load times from cache are now: 7 sec on drive C:, 11 sec
on drive E:
Both C: and E: use NWCACHE write behind disk caching. The differences
are that C: drive uses 4 KB clusters, while E: only 2 KB clusters (to
save disk space). Is it possible that my C: drive is faster because it
uses sectors with smaller absolute distances than E: drive (?)
I am going to compare load times with RAMdisk only installation, but
I am surprised how big the speed differences can be even on the same
PC, same operating system and same hard drive.... maybe this may be the
reason why some users are enthusiastic about speed, while others
complain ?
BTW, the page I was testing is http://ctk.ceskenoviny.cz
--
Michael Polak: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arachne Labs: http://arachne.cz/
My mobile phone - up to 160 characters: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
