Hello Clarence:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:24:18 -0400, Clarence Verge wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 21:50:30 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> I am using the same hard drive as used on my 386. Only a 16 bit FAT, not
>> 32 bit. My OS is Caldera DR-DOS, v. 3.02. Does the 16 bit FAT cause it
>> to run much slower than it perhaps otherwise would with a 32 bit FAT?
> Hi Sam;
> The FAT shouldn't make any difference at all unless you had many, many
> small files on a quite big disk. (512/528Mb) Then the cluster sizes would
> be much larger with a 16 bit FAT (8k) and even if your file is only one
> byte you still have to read the whole 8k to get to the next file.
> Very likely you have a 2k cluster size on an HD that was used with a '386.
> That said, maybe your HD speed is limiting the increase you are seeing.
> Are you using a decent (512kb at least) HD cache ?
> How many buffers ?
Disk size is 1.28 Gigabytes, setup with overlay system. This of course
is a hard drive of rather recent manufacture that I had purchased new and
installed in the old 386 a couple of years ago.
32,768 bytes in each allocation unit (cluster size?)
Using same cache settings as in 386:
Using NWCACHE 7620 1024 /LEND=ON /DELAY=OFF
Files = 20
Buffers = 20
Regards,
Sam Heywood
