At 07:37 PM 3/5/96 -0500, David Gilbert wrote:
>	Well, for total thoughput, I'm sure that you can manufacture
>numbers that show that the dynamic buffer-cache will be a win.

        Not just in rare applications, but I find that Linux operates quite
smoothly on this premise.  Also, the fact that Windows NT does this makes it
possible to get better overall system performance.  This "dynamic disk
cache" is certainly something of note and used within reason, I'm sure it
will be more beneficial than detrimental.

>	When we go to implement this --- and I am convinced that it
>can be a good idea --- I would like to see it relatively easy to move
>the 'line' around near to the 'target' (the target being around 10%),
>with it getting harder as you move away from it.  I really, really,
>really want to prevent the situation where creating a large tar swaps
>out everything on you.

        Yes, it'd be an excellent feature to control the amount of memory
dedicated to a disk cache instead of working around a fixed value.  I don't
know the details of Windows NT's implementation, but it seems to be at a
very reasonable setting for a machine with 16 megs of RAM.

Mike.

======================================================================
Mike Frisch                             Email: mfrisch@saturn.tlug.org
Northstar Technologies                 WWW: http://www.io.org/~mfrisch
Newmarket, Ontario, CANADA                      Compuserve: 76620,2534