🚀 go-pugleaf

c60b-1eq@e260-1e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) writes:

>In article <34067@ccicpg.UUCP> mhr@ccicpg.UUCP (MHR {who?}) writes:
>>Now if Adam's 384k had been the first 384k on the far side of the first
>>megabyte, your advice would have been more appropriate, but I think you
>>may have misunderstood what he was saying (or I did, in which case
>>ignore this post).

>>Besides, I side with the previous responder to Adam's post who suggested
>>that he use it for a disk cache.  I find that use to be eminently
>>suitable for my extra k.

>Agreed.  A disk cache is a good choice if you want a general
>improvement in disk speed, since there are areas of the disk that
>are accessed frequently (such as the FAT and directory area).

Thanks to all who've sent me mail suggesting that I use a disk cache.  I'm
trying one out now, and it's kinda fun.  I don't see the 900% improvement
that some claim, but a little bit of improvement is ok, too...384k just
sitting there at 10000h is a bit of a waste, so I'm better off now.

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
! Adam Goldberg           !       *         ! "It's simple! Even a PASCAL     !
! cs352a41@cs.iastate.edu !       *         !  programmer could do it!"       !
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+