home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: columba.udac.uu.se!sabik!t92etr
- From: t92etr@sabik.tdb.uu.se (Erik Trulsson)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: Want to boot FAAAST?
- Date: 21 Mar 1996 13:19:19 GMT
- Organization: Uppsala University
- Message-ID: <4irl0n$1dng@columba.udac.uu.se>
- References: <68771929@0humpty.tomate.tng.oche.de> <1280.6645T903T2008@mailbox.swipnet.se> <4ipc7i$6n@sun1000.pwr.wroc.pl>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: sabik.tdb.uu.se
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- Robert Wojcik (wojcikr@alpha.ok.ae.wroc.pl) wrote:
-
- : This is strange wondering, regarding one block of Ram Disk takes 1024 bytes.
- : Anyway another 1024 for file header ...and it sucks like hell.
-
- That is a very common (and natural) misconception.
- The 1024 bytes block size reported bt RAM: is a lie from the filesystem.
- The ram disk doesn't use fixed blocks to hold the files, it only uses the
- amount of memory that is actually needed (plus some small overhead most likely)
- If you want to test this you can do what I did, namely create something like
- 2000 small files in RAM: and check the amount of free memory before and after.
- When I did this the amount of free memory only decreased by a couple of hundred K.
- If RAM: had actually used 1024 byte blocks like a normal disk, free memory should
- have decreased by 4 Megabytes, but it didn't.
- To sum it up: putting a large amount of small files in RAM: does not use up
- much more memory than the actual size of those files. (plus some memory
- for storing the names and sizes of the files and that kind of stuff)
-
-
-