Michael & ...
Can't quote line to line so leaving everything overquoted. Sorry
Michael, did you try dropping a copy of COMMAND.COM into the drive on E:
where you're running Arachne?
Where is C:\DOS on the path statement [beginning or end]?
What type of HDD do you have? Does anyone know if HDDs are written in
the same pie-slice pattern as FDs are?? Could be that primary partition
is written in different shape than logical drive in extended partition,
so actual head movements are significantly different??
Michael, have you tried setting up Arachne on two logical drives and
comparing them there? Like D: and E: or E: and J: or whatever??
The fact that the C: has larger sectors could reduce file fragmentation
from sector to sector [but it does, of course, waste space].
For a fair test, Arachne should be removed from both drives, and the
drives then optimized and whatever part of utility you use to optimize
free space being all together. Then Arachne could be installed on
primary partition C: and on a couple of logical drives in extended DOS
parittion. Only then would comparisons be "legal" ...
l.d.
====
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:07:14 +0100, Michael Polak wrote:
> 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]
-- Arachne V1.60, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
