buffer size on HDs does size matter?

[John Doe]

XNoArchive troll

Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:23:57 -0600
From: Michael Cecil <macecil comcast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: buffer size on HDs does size matter?
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:24:01 -0600
Reply-To: macecil comcast.net
Message-ID: <ctp9p1pilm9o69v19rhtif5nklmlms55pk 4ax.com>
References: <Xns9722B1D5215Epaugle 127.0.0.1> <TrmdnUoyGIzSQwnenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d comcast.com> <nx5lf.26310$eM7.6063 fe05.lga>
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 15
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.1.219.131
X-Trace: sv3-n5yjS+nG5hCQNtSMq/FMBYsZD382haqII9W5eNpk+3spgtCNYL7ndh2hvZ3QW7InuDM4Rju/JJ9dU08!LE9d6OMIlLJFpqNXz9iCwEqtWtWoioGx+pOq+LOGwvEt7QZdMs08zuJ8DpFtjWqX/f2R39TP4Z/S!u5J75nEe
X-Complaints-To: abuse comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:451638



Prove your dick is bigger than 4" without a benchmark?
Aha!! That explains sooo much!

*sigh*

Luddites are so boring.

 

[JAD]

Prove your dick is bigger than 4" without a benchmark?
Aha!!

That explains sooo much!

Yes it does....about you

 

[Rod Speed]

It doesn't need to know about files.

Wrong when deciding what to cache. Most obviously with
caching directory structures in preference to files etc.

A file is represented by block numbers and if a particular file is
requested it is requested by those blocknumbers. If those blocknumbers
happen to be available in cache, then that is where they will come from.

Irrelevant to deciding what its more important to cache.

Read-ahead caching

It was caching in general that was being
discussed, not just read ahead caching.

is not about pre-emptive file caching, it is about
caching sectors that are likely to be read next by
the next IO but which IO may not arrive in time so
that when it eventually does the data is available without
having to wait a revolution to still pick that data up.

See above.

Both don't know about your files either.

Wrong again.

All they can do is load files that are
adjacent to the file that you are loading

Wrong again.

but that does nothing for the file that you are loading

Never said it did.

and the files that are adjacent to the file that you are loading may
have nothing whatsoever to do with the app that you are using.

Never said they did.

The OS can obviously distinguish between directory structures
that are more likely to be used again and files loaded by apps,
can know what processes requested which files and which
processes are no longer running and so are less likely to
request that file again, etc etc etc.

In spades with the apps where decent database apps can be
a lot more intelligent about what data they cache internally etc.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all and couldnt manage
a viable troll if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.