Re: nbuf=64/128 theory

Article View: comp.sys.next.software

Article #937

Back to comp.sys.next.software Previous Next

#937

From: Paul Lynch
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1992 22:09

26 lines
1478 bytes

In article <1992Nov8.130418.19237@wam.umd.edu> gaia@wam.umd.edu (L.  
Anathea Brooks) writes:
> 
> I've changed my boot params using nbuf=128 or rather 
> nbu=128 because of 12 character limit.
> 
> Now, I know this will speed up long compilations, perhaps
> various sorts of number crunching. BUT is there any advantage 
> or speed gain in workaday world? I notice none, and wonder if 
> the memory used by the buffer might be better used as just 
> plain old memory. 

Are you running 3.0?  If so, you should see a noticeable speed  
improvement, particularly when scrolling text windows (such as in Edit)

Also, are you sure that you typed it in correctly.  If so, the first  
messages in a verbose boot should confirm the number of buffers in use.   
The only indication that you get of an incorrect parmeter is that the  
number of buffers reported is 16.

Paul
-- 
Paul Lynch
P & L Systems                   (NeXTmail) paul@seer.demon.co.uk
Tel: (0494)671501                      paull@cix.compulink.co.uk
Fax: (0494)680228                       76711.451@compuserve.com

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1992Nov8.220956.491@seer.demon.co.uk>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pipex!demon!seer.demon.co.uk!paul

References: <1992Nov8.130418.19237@wam.umd.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.software
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pipex!demon!seer.demon.co.uk!paul
From: paul@seer.demon.co.uk (Paul Lynch)
Subject: Re: nbuf=64/128 theory
Message-ID: <1992Nov8.220956.491@seer.demon.co.uk>
Sender: paul@seer.demon.co.uk
Organization: P & L Systems
References: <1992Nov8.130418.19237@wam.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:09:56 GMT
Lines: 26

Reply to Parent Message