On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Eric Auer wrote: > This reminds me of the 386 question: How much bigger than the FAT16 > kernel is the FAT32 kernel in RAM (low, umb, hma) and how much of > this would be saved by optimizing for 386, experiences?
Low: the drive data tables take 32 bytes more per drive (depends on the number of partitions you have, independent of LASTDRIVE) The 2 low fnodes take 6 bytes more for FAT32 (12 bytes total) HMA: HEX DEC 8086 80186 80386 8086 80186 80386 FAT16 995c 9694 94c5 39260 38548 38085 FAT32 a7cb a4ed a24a 42955 42221 41546 i.e. FAT32 adds ~3.5-3.7K; 386 optimizes out ~1.2-1.4K The fnodes take 6 bytes more (6 * #FILES) UMB no difference > How about speed gain? Perhaps, sometimes 1, 2 or 3 more BUFFERS available can make a difference. Otherwise I can't see any visible speed difference. Bart ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel