Hi Alain, Johnson, > > Sorry but Jack have no interest in LBAcache because he use Norton > > Cache, so he just care about the integrity of his own program.
> As of my tests (I have one user doing a hot test) FreeDOS+LBACache is > reliable. The other advantage is that it is distributable. I think Jack just meant "as long as UDMA works well, I am not interested in LBAcache performance tests, because I do not use LBAcache anyway". > > IMO, maybe reduce the BUFFERS=1,0 and try using cache (LBAcache or > > others) may improve performance. > Sounds strange, but I will test... Note that the default for the value after the comma is 0 anyway (secondary buffers are not supported in FreeDOS, and in MS DOS, they are only used for read-ahead on certain 8086 systems, it seems: on all modern systems, read-ahead, if at all, makes only sense if you read several sectors at once, while BUFFERS can only be filled sector by sector). In addition, FreeDOS will allocate the usual 40 buffers even if you say BUFFERS=1 as soon as you use DOS=HIGH and use the HMA. This is because FreeDOS "thinks" that it would be bad to have 20 kilobytes of unused HMA space, so it fills the free HMA space with buffers. If you insist on using fewer buffers, you have to use BUFFERS=-1 syntax (which will still give more than one buffer, as FreeDOS enforces the amount of buffers to be in range between 6 and 99 buffers (see config_init_buffers()). Eric ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
