[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Explorer and downloader file upgrade speed up on Windows NT.


  • To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: Explorer and downloader file upgrade speed up on Windows NT.
  • From: Vitaly Larichev <vitaly@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 20:40:37 -0500 (EST)
  • In-reply-to: <00f901be6c79$c9502cf0$361fa03e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

Laurent,

The improvement from 16 min to 6 min !!! WOW!

I checked www.eecsys.com site - it seems they didn't come out yet with a version for Windows 95/98.
Too bad.
Couldn't find on Web anything useful except vramdr.zip utility that too didn't show any improvement
on a MS exploration (1042 stocks in 4 subdirectories). I have P-166 MMX, 64 Mb RAM, 3.2Gb EIDE drive
with Win98. The gain you achieved is really something. MS slowness is a pain in ... wherever you
feel ... ; I feel it everywhere :-) .

Anybody else had an encouraging experience with cache utilities for MS? Would greatly appreciate
sharing!

Cheers, Vitaly


Laurent GITTLER wrote:

> All,
>
> I wanted to share some performance enhancements with the list.
>
> There discussions are often emails about performance issues using the
> downloader.
> I was experimenting performance problems with eplorations taking 16 minutes
> each on my computer on 9000 stocks organized into 26 sub-directories
> (K6-233, 96 Mb RAM, 2 ATA IDE drives (4.6 + 6.4 Gb), Windows NT workstation
> SP4).
>
> I tried using supercache NT 4.01e from eecsys (www.eecsys.com or
> www.belt-sofware.com). This is a disk cache utility with read ahead and
> write back (i.e. data is not written at once on the disk but kept in cache
> for a few seconds).
>
> I set the cache to write-back and auto-configure (it's not fine tuned yet).
>
> Now the exploration time is 6 minute each. So performance is really
> improving with that utility.
> I will give improvements I will get updating data. My first impressions are
> that it goes faster and disk activity seems smoother too.
>
> Laurent Gittler