Hi,
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:59:32 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (arachne-digest)
wrote:
> From: "Michael Polak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Very strange observation .. DOS expert needed :-)
> Subject: more on my C: and 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
This is only important if the amount of files reduces very much.
On modern machines, I guess you don't notice the difference between
eg. 128 or 200 files.
> 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 (?)
Yes, the clustersize _IS_ very much related to speed.
Bigger clusters = faster, but more wasted space.
> And how it is possible, that disk C: is faster, than my RAM disk ? (?)
> Is size of clusters really so important ?
Yes, if C: is cached, it's just as fast as RAM disk, but clustersize
makes the difference (that's why you can choose clustersize in ext2fs
and FAT32 fs).
> Wise DOS gurus, can you please explain me how is this possible ? ;-)
> (I am running DR-DOS 7.01...)
I'm not a DOS guru, but can advise you to upgrade to DR-DOS 7.03 (!)
and if you have MS-DOS 6.2x somewhere, replace NWCACHE with SMARTDRV
and DISKOPT with DEFRAG (look at my previous CWSDPMI and NWCACHE
messages for more explanation).
- Best regards,
- Willy J. Hoogstraten.
- End of message -
