home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!Steve.Withers
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
- Message-ID: <1992Dec25.231430.19134@actrix.gen.nz>
- From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
- Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 23:14:30 GMT
- Sender: Steve.Withers@actrix.gen.nz (Steve Withers)
- References: <725210115snx@montage.UUCP> <1992Dec25.142615.3337@wam.umd.edu> <1992Dec25.180324.15834@donau.et.tudelft.nl>
- Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <1992Dec25.180324.15834@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
- >
- > Let me see now. Having OS/2 installed on a 6 megger and then
- > adjusting the memory settings of the 16 meg system would
- > result in the exact same setup right? (If you think, wrong,
- > quit reading, this is meant for those who understand)
- > In other words, OS/2 becomes instable if you change your
- > cache settings? I find that highly unlikely, and if indeed this
- > would be the case, it shows poor programming. However,
- > I see no reason for it to be so, since, the same effect would be
- > gotten when the system becomes low on memory for other reasons,
- > like too many jobs. Response time does go down (hence the
- > poorly) but it does not affect stability. Stability is not a
- > function of memory available, so the system is most likely to
- > remain as stable or unstable as it was before the memory change.
- > I am sure this is easy enough to understand.
- >
- > Erik
-
- Hi Erik. I guess our friend Yamanari doesn't know that under OS/2 any cache
- setting higher than 2048K is ignored......
-
- Steve
-
- --
- Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
- Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz | for proportional representation. It
- +64 4 478 4714 | looks like we may get a more
- **** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! **** | democratic system "real soon now".
-