Nieminen Mika wrote in message <379ff71b@news.povray.org>...
>Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>:>  Why the disk cache should be dependant of the RAM size? I don't
>: understand.
>
>
>: Because that's the way Microsoft wrote it.
>
>  I have always understood that the bigger the disk cache, the smaller the
>benefits.
>  If you have 1 MB of disk cache, you will see a big increase in speed.
>With 2 MB the speed will increase again, but it will not double. With
>4 MB the speed increases a little, but it will be a lot less than 4 times
>the speed of 1 MB. The more memory you use for disk caching, the smaller
>will the speed/memory-relation be, because you don't get the same benefit
>for each MB you add.
>  This means that the speed achieved with 40 MB will be aproximately the
>same as with 42MB. So you wasted 2 MB for nothing.


Try telling Microsoft that.  As of Windoze 95, they hadn't learned such
basic engineering concepts as "fail-safe", so that when Win95 crashes on
shutdown (frequently and often), eventually things get messed up so badly
that Windoze must be reinstalled.

Mark

Post a reply to this message