On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Eric Auer wrote:
> This reminds me of the 386 question: How much bigger than the FAT16
> kernel is the FAT32 kernel in RAM (low, umb, hma) and how much of
> this would be saved by optimizing for 386, experiences?
Low:
the drive data tables take 32 bytes more per drive (depends on the number
of partitions you have, independent of LASTDRIVE)
The 2 low fnodes take 6 bytes more for FAT32 (12 bytes total)
HMA: HEX DEC
8086 80186 80386 8086 80186 80386
FAT16 995c 9694 94c5 39260 38548 38085
FAT32 a7cb a4ed a24a 42955 42221 41546
i.e. FAT32 adds ~3.5-3.7K; 386 optimizes out ~1.2-1.4K
The fnodes take 6 bytes more (6 * #FILES)
UMB
no difference
> How about speed gain?
Perhaps, sometimes 1, 2 or 3 more BUFFERS available can make a difference.
Otherwise I can't see any visible speed difference.
Bart
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
