home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!darwin.sura.net!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall
- From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
- Subject: Re: Ramdrive vs disk cache for temporary files
- Message-ID: <1992Nov13.223128.21271@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
- Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
- References: <1992Nov13.180117.20097@tamsun.tamu.edu>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:31:28 GMT
- Lines: 33
-
- In <1992Nov13.180117.20097@tamsun.tamu.edu> tpradeep@cs.tamu.edu (Pradeep K Tapadiya) writes:
-
- >Howdy netters,
-
- >Some compilers, linkers, and editors create intermediate files
- >which gets deleted at the end of the job.
-
- >Of a ramdrive or a disk cache, which one is more suitable for
- >such temporary files?
-
- Generally a fast RAMdrive will speed this sort of application up a
- lot.
-
- >How about caching a ram-drive? Does it make sense?
-
- Not much, no. The advantage of using a RAM drive for the temp files
- and your cache for the rest is that you get blinding speed for all the
- temp files, yet you don't wind up flushing your cache in the process
- of creating them. If you try to cache your RAM Drive, it will
- probably be SLOWER and it would make more sense to just take the
- memory you're allocating as a RAM Drive and use it for Cache.
-
- I use both on my machine (for different things), but I have a lot of
- memory. Another thing you might want to do is point the Windows
- 'Temp' directory at a RAM drive (for the same reason).
-
-
-
- --
- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
- in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
-