#3DS and Dos6 compression
10 messages in this thread
I will take your advice and use Stacker. Also, I was talking to a guy
today who had just switched from Stacker to Doubledisk (Dos6). He
says that he noticed a significant performance degredation with DD,
and he thinks it's because the Dos6 version of Smardrive, when used
in conjunction with DD, keeps compressed data in the disk cache. What
a stupid thing to do! I guess Microsoft thinks we all have really
slow hard disks and really small memories, and really fast cpus.
>> I guess Microsoft thinks we all have really slow hard disks and really small
>> memories, and really fast cpus.
Ain't that the truth? If you look at the computers being sold today,
they all have el cheapo HD and little memory. That's how they get it
to be "competitive". People don't know and buy those things. They
later spend a lot more "upgrading" it.
As to the guy you were talking to, make sure he is not cacheing the
compressed drive. For instance, if he's got a portion of drive C:
compressed and the compressed drive is drive D:, run Smartdrive on C:
only. Not on D:.
If you have the patience, plan ahead the files you place in each
drive. Executables you use most often are better of in the
uncompressed drive.
Gus,
I don't see why not caching the compressed drive would help. The problem with
doubledisk vs stacker is that there is no cache of uncompressed data for you to
go to an pssible be able to read data a second time without having to
uncompress it again. Turning off cacheing on the compressed drive could only
make accessing the compressed drive slower.
I think stacker handles this caching better by making the compression invisible
to the cache program so it will keep uncompressed data ready to go in the
cache.
BTW, I checked smartdrv and it is caching a,b, and d, but not c (my compressed
drive). I did not give it any drive parameters, so it did this on its own. It
must be detecting something funny about c. Anyway, If I run my program that I
wrote to tell me data transfer rate when reading a file, I get 1.1 MB/sec
reading it the first time on the stacker drive, 1.6 MB/sec the first time on
the non-stacker drive, and about 5MB/sec the second time (from the cache) on
both drives, so I guess smartdrive is caching the data for the compressed
drive, but unlike in doubledisk and dos6 smartdrive, it is caching the data
after it is uncompressed.
Bailey
As I said, this is all "theory" as I have never installed double disk in any of
my computers. I can't say much about it. By the way, take a look at todays Info
World you have a chance. Microsoft is getting deeper and deeper in the %$@%$
with this double disk thing. A _ton_ of people are complaining about corrupt
data. The statistics are ridiculous. PC Tools 7.0 had that big bashing because
of data corruption with less than 1% reported cases. In Microsoft's case it's
up in the teens!
Because the "compressed drive" is really a file on an uncompressed drive,
caching the uncompressed drive automatically caches the compressed drive.
The rain in Spain, falls mainly on the plain.
Moses supposes his toeses are roses, but Moses supposes erroneously. Moses, he
knowes, his toeses aren't roses, as Moses supposes his toeses to be.
Got any more tongue-twister/speech-enhancers?<g>
Dave
How about:
The sixth sheik's sixth sheep is sick.
OR
Sasha's sickly sister's sixty shift sifters.
Hmm?
DT
The Leith Police dismisseth us.
Red Lorry Yellow Lorry (repeat six times – quickly)
:-%
toy boat toy boat toy boat toy boat toy boat toy boat toy boat…, etc.
Bailey
Red lorry yellow lorry I can actually say fairly quickly, but that other one!
Oy! I can't even say it slow!
PMJI, I work for a large computer dealer and although we only sell
Compaq, IBM and apple they to have come out with chaper and chaper
models to compete with the Dells and Gateways of the world. But I
would have to disagree with the "el cheapo HD's and no mem" 90% of
the computers we sell come with 8Mb and conner HD's (compaq).
Personally I think IBM sucks – they just can't seem to make a quality
machine. Having worked on them for the past 2 years I know what they
are like inside – and it isn't worth buying. Although 8Mb is not an
awesome amount is very sufficient for an average home or business
running Windows and some other software. It also seems to me that
places like Dell and Gateway 2000 are trying to sell computers
equipped with at least 8Mb and 200Mb Hd's. Anyway – just my 2 cents.