However again you have to bear in mind that you're taking the memory away from Windows, and if most of what you do is reads and very little writes. ![]() It's always going to be faster to write 500MB of scattered data to memory and have it spit onto disk over time. for write caching it's much simpler in that it has to help speed things up. Perhaps with that and a bit of time it could be judged if it was better to take 2GB away from Windows and give it to Fanc圜ache or not.Įdit : Of course I focused on read caching. What's needed, I guess, would be some kind of benchmarking built into a game which would measure level load times in MB/sec and access times etc. ![]() Previously people running RAMdisks with swapfile in the RAMdisk found better performance - at least on XP - so Windows doesn't get it right all the time. It's quick to release the memory when it needs to, but by design it'll fill it all up if it can. Those of us who have noticed Windows using up lots of memory.well yes and no. By doing this it hopes to minimise disk access. Windows default behaviour is to try to use as much memory as possible. However Windows already does at least some of this by default. ![]() If for example you're playing a game, then you're only going to be accessing a subset of data on your drives, the cache must help with that. It depends on what you are doing how much use that is.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |