🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug12.132553.5839@sinix.UUCP>
	dhg@sinix.UUCP (David Griffith) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.124010.21440@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
>	meyergru@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Uwe Meyer-Gruhl) writes:
>>Honestly speaking: If someone needs more speed for perpetual access to the
>>same old files over and over again (like with TeXing), a ramdisk is not
>>the solution (at least for Unix users). It _is_ possible, though, to patch
>>/sdmach so that it uses more than the usual 16 buffers (128 K). I have 
>>configured my system to use 384 buffers (i.e. 3 MByte) and it works quite 
>>well with that setting.
>
>Wow! You Germans certainly know how to hack! Actually, if you're
>talking about the number of buffers in the buffer cache, then 16
>does seem way too low, at least on a normal Unix system (don't know
>about Mach though). Would you like to tell us what is required to
>increase this number? It's quite common to access the same old
>files over and over again - that after all is why you have a buffer
>cache.

Yes, please.  Post it.  I mean, people are alluvthetime posting
stuff on the net which is almost guaranteed to hose your system
("Oh, sure, I unplug and reconfigure my SCSI bus with the power on
all the time, go ahead, do it").  This sounds like something useful
with little chance of such hosery.  Quick&Dirty instructions for
using emacs to make the patch would be great fun.  Or, grab the
alphalock.c program and hack it to increase the buffers.  Or, send
the information to me and _I'll_ hack alphalock.c to do it :-).

Later,
--
scott hess <shess@ssesco.com>  <Who achieved programmer nirvana on Aug 11th>
12901 Upton Avenue South, #326  Burnsville, MN 55337 (612) 895-1208 Anytime!
   <Text: One Class to bring them all and in the darkness bind them ...>