Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!uunet!news.tek.com!tekig7!bs
From: bs@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert L Swarts)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: DOS 6.0
Message-ID: <9647@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>
Date: 23 Apr 93 14:17:15 GMT
References: <199304201011.AA00801@mosque.cs.huji.ac.il> <1993Apr23.035543.25060@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 21

In article <1993Apr23.035543.25060@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:
>In article <199304201011.AA00801@mosque.cs.huji.ac.il> dny@cs.huji.ac.il (Danny Halamish) writes:
>>
>>Also, DBLSPACE is crap. It writes about 40% slower than stacker, reads about
>>20% slower, and compresses about 10% LESS. All tests were made on the same
>>computer with the same disk, no cache, and the same (big) files were used.
>
>Couldn't agree more.  On my 486-50 I don't miss the speed.  It's still
>faster than a normal disk read would be.  As for the less compression,
>
>koberg

I recall reading a review article in PC Computing wherein they reported
a reduction in the loading time for lengthy programs using Stacker 3.0.
This was not due to the compression algorithm per se, but to the fact
that fewer fetches were required during the sequential file access. Does
anyone have any actual performance numbers relating to speeds of Stacker
and Dblspace?

bs

