DOS ain't dead - Comments On 11-22-2009 UIDE.

Comments On 11-22-2009 UIDE. (Announce)

posted by Jack , Fresno, California USA, 25.11.2009, 08:26
(edited by Jack on 25.11.2009, 08:39)

> Many thanks for your continued dedication and improvements.

You are welcome! Happy to see that the new UIDE seems to have helped you.

> Yes, it does seem that 16-KB cache blocks provide more efficient transfers
> when many small files are involved ...

Actually, the 16K-byte blocks may "transfer" slightly slower. Their intent
is to provide more "net" cache capacity.

> Am I correct that the logic works the same as a cluster-size on large hard
> disks, ie there is always some "slack" space involved with every file ...

There is always some "slack" in the last cache block used to store any file.
But it was not my intent to "emulate" a hard disk's clusters. UIDE's newer
cache blocks provide the minimum blocksize which its 65536 blocks can allow.
A 16-bit word is used for UIDE's binary-search indexes, so it cannot "count"
higher than 65536 blocks. 65K blocks times 16K bytes per block allows 1-GB
caches, times 32K bytes allows 2-GB caches and times 64K allows 4-GB caches.
"Nothing more complex" than that is involved!

> So, it would seem that 64-kb block sizes will be most efficient in terms
> of speed, for large files and 16-kb best for smaller files?

I have noted very little speed difference with 16K/32K/64K blocks. Again,
my intent was to provide the best CAPACITY, and I am in fact SURPRISED that
the 16K blocks seem to perform almost equally fast as larger ones!

> I am the guy with lots of memory (8 GB RAM) and can confirm that the 4 GB
> cache option works well and properly. As I am only able to access 3584 MB
> total RAM in DOS due to framebuffer limits, I did test on files of 2047 MB
> and 1024 MB (3 GB total) and all was cached at blazing speed (at least 1.2
> GB/sec) to the best of my timing ability.

Steve Burd, on his own 4-GB system, also seems to be limited by frame-buffer
"losses" to only 3.5-GB. You both ought to try DISABLING the frame buffer,
when you run DOS, if that is possible.

> I would like to test QCACHE on a *single* file > 2 GB, but this requires a
> 64-kb cluster size FAT16 partition, which I will set up and try ... I'll
> start with a 3072 MB file and work from there.

Do call the driver UIDE! The original QCACHE came not-even close to UIDE's
capabilities, has not existed for almost 3 years, and I do not even have the
QCACHE source files any more!

---
(Account disabled on user's request.)

Post reply

Complete thread:

New 11-16-2009 UIDE Available. - Jack, 20.11.2009, 13:50 (Announce)
- Steve Burd Says 4-GB UIDE Works Fine! - Jack, 21.11.2009, 00:59
- New 11-16-2009 UIDE Available. - Rugxulo, 22.11.2009, 00:42
  - Comments On New 16-Nov-2009 UIDE. - Jack, 22.11.2009, 04:35
    - Comments On New 16-Nov-2009 UIDE. - RayeR, 23.11.2009, 01:11
      - Comments On New 16-Nov-2009 UIDE. - Jack, 23.11.2009, 07:41
- Better 11-22-2009 UIDE Available. - Jack, 24.11.2009, 08:48
  - Better 11-22-2009 UIDE Available. - Zyzzle, 25.11.2009, 02:52
    - Comments On 11-22-2009 UIDE. - Jack, 25.11.2009, 08:26