Want to speed up your disks... BIGTIME? Try this software...
#1
Posted 07 October 2001 - 02:02 AM
What does it do that NT's own NTFS journelled lazy-write (meta-data is written immediately, data is lazy-written) caching doesn't do?
#2
Posted 07 October 2001 - 03:17 AM
Try it and see!
No, because I don't know what it does, and I'm not in the habit of installing software whose purpose and mechanism is unknown.
See, I'm not convinced that I will see increased speeds, because I don't know what it does. For all I know it might do nothing more than enable the unlimited file cache registry key (which I already have enabled).
Surely it can't be so trivially simple that a quick description of what it does that NT doesn't would be sufficient for me to write my own version?
The only thing I'm interested is real-world performance.
#3
Posted 07 October 2001 - 04:16 AM
Ok then, fine... do not try it! It's your loss maybe, you know? You're being 'close-minded' & all I am asking you is, try it and see!
No, I am asking for more information about the product. Before I install it, I want to know what it does, and I want to know why it's better than the built-in caching done by the OS.
Again, benchmarks are of no interested whatsoever. One can show pretty much anything with a benchmark.
It's not using the SessionManager, Memory Management, LargeSystemCache=1 setting registry hack if that's what you mean.
It's a driver Peterb/DrPizza. Tuneable & parameterizeable & creates its OWN memory cache that compliments the native one.
This already sets the alarm bells off. If it uses its own memory cache, that necessarily means depriving the system cache (because the system cache is free to grow as large as it likes; if this other program is using a large block of memory for its own cache, the system cache can't then use it).
Again, outline what it does.
Speak for yourself. My boss wouldn't know one end of a computer from the other. I have no interest in award ceremonies (plenty of software I wouldn't care to use receives awards; they're a poor indication of quality).
It being good in 1997 doesn't mean it'll assist Windows 2000 at all.
I might be looking in the wrong place, but I can't find any real-world benchmarks on the web site, at all. Again, something that sets off the alarm bells.
Then there can't have been a great deal to it.
I have no intention of copying the program. I just wish to read an explanation, even a vague one, of how it works (and, more importantly, how it speeds things up).
#4
Posted 07 October 2001 - 06:16 AM
Look, you're a coder! I make speculations on designs of products with NO clues, and many times? I can design something of equal or better performance & aesthetics than an already existing product because I did not have to spend time on the initial idea designs... I can't give you that, & you KNOW it!
Er, why not? Bits of the thing are apparently patented; you can at least tell me what the patents are for (they're protected by patent, so I couldn't copy them even if I wanted to).
That's a decent indicator, as 3 diff. tests concur with how my system responds, for ME, in the real-world!
I can tell just running it... try it, you will too. But, up to you!
This assumes that the three benchmarks have different testing methodologies. This would very much surprise me.
Well, actually, it does. It can't help it. It permits me to turn off NT's caching (it claims), but it doesn't require me to. And if I don't do that, it will harm NT's cache, by taking memory that NT would otherwise use for its own cache.
How?
It's a simple enough question.
Does it use a more advanced read-ahead algorithm?
Does it merely use a larger cache?
Does it allow the same tricks as NT's filecache does (for instance, files can be both in the file cache and in an application's address space simultaneously)?
Does it cache CDFS/UDF disks?
It says it lets you alter the page size -- but 4 kbyte pages are a hardware feature (Pentiums and perhaps others apparently have a 4 Mbyte page mode, but this is undocumented and requires an NDA to be signed to receive documentation). So what is it actually changing?
Awards are not indicators of quality. They're indicators of the receipt of an award. No more, no less.
Try it yourself, test any way you like even, the best & only way, right?
Its documentation makes dubious claims, and what it's doing is a mystery. It fiddles with important parts of the OS, but doesn't explain how. So, no.
I couldn't get your stuff to even *install*. Let alone get a chance to use it.
You can give me a URL to some real-world testing.
APK Windows 2000 Tools didn't mess with anything important (it never got the chance; the installer bombed out persistently). This program, however, does. And until I get some indication as to /what/ it will change, I won't trust it.
I've never written a GUI in my life, and I have no desire to start now.
Placing adverts requires money, not quality. How bad can it be? It can crash my system on startup. It can corrupt data. So, pretty bad.
#5
Posted 16 October 2001 - 08:27 PM
#6
Posted 17 October 2001 - 02:53 AM
Hey guys, you should come to my house and test out my banana! I peeled it myself, and set it on my computer! It's making my Voodoo5 output 137FPS at 1600x1200, 32-bit colour, with 4xFSAA!!! I've tested it out with a wide array of syntetic benchmarks too, and they all agree that that banana is making my Voodoo5 a powerhouse of speed! Honest, I swear!!! I peeled it myself, i think I should know! I won't tell you HOW to peel the banana, or you may try it yourself, and then try to sell it!
Give them something to go on. How do you get paid for your work on the program? Do you get royalties, or did you receive a fixed amount. You're not an employee, so you're not getting paid that way.
If you're not getting paid for it anymore, and you're not under NDA you can tell us how it works.
If you wrote that stuff, and it's patiented, give us the patent numbers, perhaps someone would like to look them up. Some people are VERY edgey about what goes on their computer. It's not usually an issue, most software gives SOME idea of what it does. You are being VERY evasive about the whole matter though. They're not going to install something without knowing what it's doing. All they want is a general idea, they don't need exact details (atleast I don't). You aren't doing anything to belay they're fears!
If you were a friend of mine, one that I trusted, I'd try it out, but you're just some guy. I'd react the same way as they are if some guy came up to me on the street and told me he has magic poweder that can do wonderful things. I sure as hell wouldn't want to try it unless I knew exactly what it did, not just the result!
The ends don't always justify the means.
URLs, charts, details. If you wrote so much of it, then you should have a pretty good idea of how it works. And if you're not being paid, and aren't legally bound to silence, you have no reasons I can think of to NOT tell! (unless you play to rehash the same concepts to another company for more money perhaps?)
#7
Posted 21 October 2001 - 07:54 PM
#8
Posted 22 October 2001 - 03:50 AM
-Amnesiac
#10
Posted 22 October 2001 - 07:44 AM
-Amnesiac
#12
Posted 09 November 2001 - 09:56 PM
God Damn !
#13
Posted 11 November 2001 - 03:47 PM
#14
Posted 16 November 2001 - 11:34 AM
I know for one, that's money I just spent on a couple of 60GXP's for my VP6:D
#15
Posted 17 November 2001 - 01:40 AM
#16
Posted 17 November 2001 - 01:47 PM
[B]
I can email it to you if needed, I noted that link is broken again... the file is 1,743kb in size. Just over the size of a single floppy disk...
(Easily sent by email until they fix the link zalem)
Yes please, that would be nice!

Help










