Hello, Mark!

Mark O'Donohue wrote:

> I'd be interested as well in seeing the results, and also I think

I'll prepare results after second test, so there will be things to be
compared.

> interested in the test scripts, one thing we are missing is general
> load tests, and this might prove a good place to start.

sorry, no scripts. I've just copied CreateFile call from sources,
and made simple sequential and random read/write buffered operations.
I.e. simulated working with pages without internal cache.
The tests were run only to understand how different CreateFile flags
(page size and cluster size also) affects read/write performance.

> On another note, although not suitable for end users I think it might
> not be a bad idea to have some of these things available via switches to
> developers in a debug build.

I've found Jim's rule very good, and now I see that no_buffering is unusable for
IDE dives. Maybe after some another tests (on another IDE and some SCSI)
I will change my mind, don't know.

> Real programmers like to live on the edge ;-).

Of course! :-) Another story is how Interbase will work with these
"special found flags". Plain tests I've made shows only HDD performance.
The only why I've asked to insert no_buffering is because I can't compile
sources yet by myself. Sorry, I'm not C/C++ programmer.
But, seems that it is easier to install MSVC than to wait for somebody who will
add new untested (!) functionality and prepare new distributive for public (!)
download.

--
Dmitry Kuzmenko, Epsylon Technologies.